optimized aggregate gradation for structural...
Post on 07-May-2018
246 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
South DakotaDepartment of Transp
SD2002-02-F
ortaOffice of Research
Connecting South Dakota and the Nati
tion
on
Optimized Aggregate Gradation for Structural Concrete
Study SD2002-02 Draft Final Report
Prepared by Dr. V. Ramakrishnan Distinguished Professor, SDSM&T. 501 East St. Joseph Street Rapid City, SD 57701-3995 Ph: (605) 394 – 2403 April 2004
DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the South Dakota Department of Transportation, the State Transportation Commission, or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was performed under the supervision of the SD2002-06 Technical Panel: Mark Clausen…………………………FHW John Cole ................Office of Bridge Design Brenda Flottmeyer .............. Rapid City Area Greg Fuller ..............Office of Bridge Design Darin Hodges………Materials and Surfacing
Mare Hoelscher .........................Road Design Ron McMahon ........Materials and Surfacing Daris Ormesher ............... Office of Research Daniel Strand……………Office of Research
The work was performed in cooperation with the United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration.
ii
TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE 1. Report No. SD2002-02
2. Government Accession No.
3. Recipient's Catalog No.
4. Title and Subtitle Optimized Aggregate Gradation for Structural Concrete
5. Report Date April, 2004
6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author(s) Dr. V. Ramakrishnan
8. Performing Organization Report No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering SDSM&T 501 East St. Joseph Street Rapid City, SD 57701-3995 (605) 394 – 2403
10. Work Unit No.
11. Contract or Grant No. 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address South Dakota Department of Transportation Office of Research 700 East Broadway Avenue Pierre, SD 57501-2586
13. Type of Report and Period Covered Final Report
14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes Project Monitor: Daris Ormesher 16. Abstract This report presents the results of an experimental investigation to produce a new set of Class A45 Concrete mix designs-using SDDOT aggregate sources-that minimize drying shrinkage by optimizing the coarse aggregate amount and gradation, and minimize cement and water content, while maintaining or improving strength, durability and workability. A comprehensive literature review relevant to optimized aggregate gradation and its effect on strength and durability aspects of concrete was done, which helped in planning and conducting this research project. Four methods pertaining to obtaining optimized aggregate gradation: 0.45 power chart, 8-18 method, USAF constructability chart method and Shilstone method, were studied and used for this investigation. It was found that all the four methods complement each other to a great extent. A detailed investigation was carried out to determine the validity of 0.45 power chart for obtaining the densest compaction of quartzite aggregates. It was found that the mix incorporating the 0.45 power chart gradation gave the highest strength and better workability when compared to other power charts and control concrete. Thus the
45 power chart is universally applicable to all aggregates. 0. For practical considerations, in order to make it easier for aggregate suppliers, only two standard sizes (1.5” and ¾” maximum sizes) of coarse aggregates (quartzite, limestone and granite) were selected for blending and optimization with medium sand (FM = 2.84) in different proportions to satisfy the target gradation. After optimizing the aggregate gradation the cement content in the concrete mix was optimized (to reduce the shrinkage cracks in concrete) without compromising the strength and workability requirements. Different percentage reductions in cement content (8.4%, 10%, and 15%) were tried and tested for strength and workability characteristics. It was found from trial mixes that by using well graded aggregates the cement content could be reduced to a maximum of 10% without compromising the strength and workability. A number of trial mixes were done by varying the water-cement ratio from 0.40 to 0.45. The water-cement ratio of 0.42 was chosen as the optimum one. An air entraining agent and when necessary a medium range water educer should be added to optimum concretes for satisfying the SDDOT requirements for slump and air content. r
A total of twelve mixes for each aggregate (quartzite, limestone and granite) were done for investigating the strength and durability properties for bridge deck concrete, of which four were control concretes, four were optimum concretes with no fly ash and four were optimum concretes with fly ash. In fly ash mixes 20% by weight of cement was replaced with 25% by weight of fly ash. Test results indicated that by using the optimum aggregate gradation, there was decrease in drying shrinkage, creep and shrinkage, chloride ion permeability and increased resistance to alkali aggregate reactivity, sulfate attack, freeze thaw attack, scaling resistance to deicing chemicals, and rapid chloride permeability. There was also an increase in setting times for fly ash concrete when compared to that of the control concretes and optimum concretes without fly ash. The compressive strengths of optimum concretes were higher than that of the control concrete. All the mixes had good workability, even when there was a reduction of 10% in cement content for the optimum mixes. The finishability of the optimum mix with fly ash was better than the control mix and optimum mix without fly ash. In general there was an improvement in the durability performance of concretes made with the optimized aggregate gradations. 17. Keywords Optimized aggregate gradation, 0.45 power chart, USAF method, 8-18 method, Shilstone method, coarseness factor, workability factor, fineness modulus, Fly ash, Chloride permeability, High performance concrete, Durability of concrete, Strength Development, alkali-aggregate reactivity, freeze thaw, scaling, sulfate attack, creep and shrinkage, setting time, drying shrinkage
18. Distribution Statement No restrictions. This document is available to the public from the sponsoring agency.
19. Security Classification (of this report) Unclassified
20. Security Classification (of this page) Unclassified
21. No. of Pages # of pages
22. Price
iii
iv
CONTENTS Cover Page . . . . . . . . . . i
Disclaimer and Acknowledgements . . . . . . . ii
Title Page . . . . . . . . . . iii
Contents . . . . . . . . . . iv
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . ix
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . xi
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . xvi
Chapter 1.0 Executive Summary 1.1 Problem Description . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Research Objective . . . . . . . . 2 1.3 Literature Review . . . . . . . . 2 1.4 Blending of Aggregates . . . . . . . 2 1.5 Trial Mixes . . . . . . . . . 3 1.6 Evaluation of Selected Optimum Mixes . . . . . 4 1.7 Tests on Fresh Concrete . . . . . . . 4 1.8 Tests on Hardened Concrete . . . . . . . 5 1.9 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . 9 1.10 Recommendations . . . . . . . . 13
Chapter 2.0 Problem Description and Objective 2.1. Problem Description . . . . . . . . 18 2.2. Research Objective . . . . . . . . 20 2.3. Materials
2.3.1 Cement . . . . . . . . 20 2.3.2 Coarse Aggregate . . . . . . . 20 2.3.3 Fine Aggregate . . . . . . . 21 2.3.4 Water . . . . . . . . . 21 2.3.5 Admixtures . . . . . . . . 21
2.4 Tests on Concrete 2.4.1 Tests on Fresh Concrete . . . . . . 21 2.4.2 Tests on Hardened Concrete
2.4.2.1 Compressive Strength and Static Modulus . . . 22 2.4.2.2 Modulus of Rupture Test . . . . . 22
2.4.3 Durability Tests on Concrete . . . . . . 22 2.4.3.1 Determination of Initial and Final
Setting time (ASTM C 403) . . . . . 22 2.4.3.2 Scaling Resistance of Concrete Surfaces Exposed
to Deicing Chemicals (ASTM C 672) . . . 23 2.4.3.3 Length Change of Mortar Bars Exposed to Sulfate
Solution (ASTM C 1012) . . . . . 24 2.4.3.4 Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (RCPT)
(ASTM C 1202) . . . . . . 25 2.4.3.5 Standard test method for potential alkali reactivity
of aggregates (ASTM C 1260) . . . . 27
v
2.4.3.6 Drying shrinkage of Concrete (ASTM C 157) . . 29 2.4.3.7 Creep of Concrete in Compression (ASTM C512) . . 30 2.4.3.8 Resistance to Freezing and Thawing of
Concrete (ASTM C 666) . . . . . 34 2.4.3.9 Concrete Plastic Shrinkage Reduction Potential
2.4.3.9.1 Test Method . . . . . 36 2.4.3.9.2 Mix Proportions . . . . . 36
2.4.3.10 Temperature monitoring in Concrete using Thermochron I-Button . . . . . 37
2.5 Test Specimens 2.5.1 Determination of Initial and Final
Setting Time (ASTM C403) . . . . . . 39 2.5.2 Strength Development . . . . . . 39 2.5.3 Sulfate Attack on Concrete . . . . . . 39 2.5.4 Resistance to Rapid Freezing and Thawing of Concrete . . 39 2.5.5 Scaling Resistance of Concrete Surfaces Exposed
to Deicing Chemicals . . . . . . . 39 2.5.6 Alkali Aggregate Reactivity . . . . . . 40 2.5.7 Drying Shrinkage of Concrete . . . . . 40 2.5.8 Creep of Concrete in Compression . . . . . 40
Chapter 3.0 Task Description 3.1 Task 1 . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.1.1 Gradation of Aggregates . . . . . . 41 3.1.2 Methods for Optimizing Aggregate Gradation . . . 49
3.1.2.1 0.45 Power Chart Method . . . . . 49 3.1.2.1.1 Maximum Density Line . . . 50
3.1.2.1.2 Validation of 0.45 Power Chart in obtaining the Optimized Aggregate Gradation for
Improving the Strength Aspects of High Performance Concrete . . . 51
3.1.2.2 Shilstone Method . . . . . . 52 3.1.2.2.1 Mortar Factor . . . . . 54 3.1.2.2.2 Aggregate particle distribution . . . 54
3.1.2.3 USAF Constructability Chart 3.1.2.3.1 Coarseness Factor Chart . . . . 56
3.1.2.4 8-18 Method . . . . . . . 57 3.1.3 Fly Ash . . . . . . . . 59
3.1.3.1 Advantages of using Fly Ash in Concrete . . . 60 3.1.4 Setting Time of Concrete . . . . . . 61 3.1.5 Scaling Resistance of Concrete to Deicing Chemicals . . 62 3.1.6 Sulfate Attack on Concrete . . . . . . 65 3.1.6.1 Ettringite Formation by Sulfate Attack . . . 65 3.1.7 Chloride Permeability in Concrete . . . . . 68 3.1.8 Alkali-aggregate reactivity (AAR) . . . . . 72 3.1.8.1 Conditions conducive to alkali-aggregate reactivity . . 77
3.1.9 Drying Shrinkage in Concrete . . . . . 80
vi
3.1.10 Creep and Shrinkage in Concrete . . . . . 84 3.1.11 Freeze Thaw Resistance of Concrete . . . . . 85
3.1.11.1 Factors affecting Durability of Concrete in Freezing and Thawing . . . . . 87
3.1.12 Concrete Plastic Shrinkage Reduction Potential . . . 90 3.2 Task 2 . . . . . . . . . . 94 3.3 Task 3 . . . . . . . . . . 94 3.4 Task 4 . . . . . . . . . . 107
3.4.1 Blending of Quartzite Aggregates . . . . . 107 3.4.2 Blending of Limestone Aggregates . . . . . 109 3.4.3 Blending of Granite Aggregates . . . . . 111
3.5 Task 5 . . . . . . . . . 113 3.6 Task 6 . . . . . . . . . 121 3.7 Task 7 . . . . . . . . . 122 3.7.1 Quartzite Aggregate . . . . . . . 122 3.7.2 Limestone Aggregate . . . . . . . 122 3.7.3 Granite Aggregate . . . . . . . 123 3.8 Task 8 . . . . . . . . . 123 3.9 Task 9 . . . . . . . . . 124 3.10 Task 10 . . . . . . . . . 125 3.11 Task 11 . . . . . . . . . 126 3.12 Task 12 . . . . . . . . . 126 3.13 Task 13 . . . . . . . . . 127 3.14 Task 14 . . . . . . . . . 129 3.15 Task 15 . . . . . . . . . 130
Chapter 4.0 Results and Discussions 4.1 Fresh Concrete Properties
4.1.1 Fresh Concrete Properties with Quartzite Aggregates . . 131 4.1.2 Fresh Concrete Properties with Limestone Aggregates . . 131 4.1.3 Fresh Concrete Properties with Granite Aggregates . . 132
4.2 Quartzite Aggregate 4.2.1 Mix used for Strength Development and Alkali Aggregate Reactivity
4.2.1.1 Fresh Concrete Properties . . . . . 134 4.2.1.2 Hardened Concrete Properties
4.2.1.2.1 Compressive Strength . . . . 136 4.2.1.2.2 Static Modulus . . . . . 139 4.2.1.2.3 Dry Unit Weight . . . . . 140 4.2.1.2.4 Modulus of Rupture (Flexural Strength) . . 140 4.2.1.2.5 Sulfate Resistance of Concrete . . . 141
4.2.1.3 Chloride Permeability Test . . . . . 143 4.2.1.4 Drying Shrinkage Deformations . . . . 144
4.2.2 Mix used for Initial and Final Setting Times, Deicer Chemicals, Resistance to Freeze-Thaw cycles and Alkali aggregate reactivity 4.2.2.1 Fresh Concrete Properties . . . . . 145 4.2.2.2 Initial and Final Setting Times . . . . 146
vii
4.2.2.3 Scaling Resistance of Concrete to Deicing Chemicals . . . . . . 148 4.2.2.4 Alkali Aggregate Reactivity . . . . . 151 4.2.2.5 Freeze Thaw Resistance . . . . . 152
4.2.3 Mix used for creep of concrete 4.2.3.1 Fresh Concrete Properties . . . . . 156 4.2.3.2 Creep and Shrinkage . . . . . . 156 4.2.3.3 Creep Recovery . . . . . . 159
4.3 Limestone Aggregate 4.3.1 Mix used for Strength Development, Flexure, Alkali
Aggregate Reactivity and Freeze Thaw Resistance 4.3.1.1 Fresh Concrete Properties . . . . . 160 4.3.1.2 Hardened Concrete Properties
4.3.1.2.1 Compressive Strength . . . . 162 4.3.1.2.2 Static Modulus . . . . . 164 4.3.1.2.3 Dry Unit Weight . . . . . 165 4.3.1.2.4 Modulus of Rupture (Flexural Strength) . . 166 4.3.1.2.5 Alkali Aggregate Reactivity . . . 167
4.3.1.3 Freeze Thaw Resistance . . . . . 170 4.3.2 Mix used for Initial and Final Setting Times, Deicer
Scaling and Sulfate Resistance of Concrete 4.3.2.1 Fresh Concrete Properties . . . . . 174 4.3.2.2 Initial and Final Setting Time . . . . . 175 4.3.2.3 Sulfate Resistance of Concrete . . . . 178 4.3.2.4 Scaling Resistance of Concrete to Deicing Chemicals . 179
4.3.3 Mix used for Rapid Chloride Permeability, Drying Shrinkage and Creep of Concrete
4.3.3.1 Fresh Concrete Properties . . . . . 182 4.3.3.2 Chloride Permeability Test . . . . . 183 4.3.3.3 Drying Shrinkage Deformations . . . . 185 4.3.3.4 Creep and Shrinkage . . . . . . 187
4.3.3.4.1 Creep Recovery . . . . . 190 4.4 Granite Aggregate
4.4.1 Mix Used for Strength Development, Sulfate Resistance to Concrete and Chloride Permeability 4.4.1.1 Fresh Concrete Properties . . . . . 191 4.4.1.2 Hardened Concrete Properties
4.4.1.2.1 Compressive Strength . . . . 193 4.4.1.2.2 Static Modulus . . . . . 196 4.4.1.2.3 Dry Unit Weight . . . . . 196 4.4.1.2.4 Modulus of Rupture (Flexural Strength) . . 197
4.4.1.3 Sulfate Resistance . . . . . . 198 4.4.1.4 Chloride Permeability Test . . . . . 199
4.4.2 Mix used for Initial and Final Setting Times, Alkali Aggregate Reactivity and Freeze Thaw Resistance
4.4.2.1 Fresh Concrete Properties . . . . . 201
viii
4.4.2.2 Initial and Final Setting Times . . . . 202 4.4.2.3 Alkali Aggregate Reactivity . . . . . 204 4.4.2.4 Freeze Thaw Resistance . . . . . 205 4.4.3 Mix used for Drying Shrinkage and Deicer
Scaling Resistance 4.4.3.1 Fresh Concrete Properties . . . . . 208 4.4.3.2 Drying Shrinkage Deformations . . . . 209 4.4.3.3 Scaling Resistance of Concrete to Deicing
Chemicals . . . . . . . 211 4.4.4 Mix used for Creep and Shrinkage of Concrete
4.4.4.1 Fresh Concrete Properties . . . . . 213 4.4.4.2 Creep and Shrinkage . . . . . . 214 4.4.4.3 Creep Recovery . . . . . . 216 4.4.4.4 Plastic Shrinkage Tests of all the Materials . . . 217
4.5 Temperature monitoring in Concrete using Thermochron I-Button . . 218
Chapter 5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 5.1 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . 227 5.2 Recommendations . . . . . . . . 235
References . . . . . . . . . . 239 Appendix A Details of Tables and Figures of Sieve Analysis,
Optimization, Aggregate Gradation, Trial Mixes and Fresh Concrete properties for Optimization of mixture proportions . . . . . A-1 to A-54
Appendix B Details of Hardened Concrete properties of mixes done for the determination of Strength Development . B-1 to B-20
Appendix C Details of Setting Times for all concretes with Quartzite, Limestone and Granite Aggregate . . . C-1 TO C-12
Appendix D Details of mixes done for the determination of resistance to Sulfate Attack . . . . . D-1 to D-5
Appendix E Details of mixes done for the determination of Rapid Chloride Permeability Test . . . . E-1 to E-3
Appendix F Details of mixes done for the determination of Alkali Aggregate Reactivity . . . . . F-1 to F-15
Appendix G Details of mixes done for the determination of Drying Shrinkage . . . . . . G1 to G-5
Appendix H Details of mixes done for the determination of Creep and Shrinkage . . . . . . H-1 to H-36
Appendix I Details of mixes done for the determination of Freeze Thaw . . . . . . . I-1 to I-10
Appendix J Concrete Plastic Shrinkage Reduction Potential . . J-1 to J-4 Appendix K Validity of 0.45 Power Chart in Obtaining the Optimized
Aggregate Gradation for Improving the Strength Aspects of High Performance Concrete . . . . K-1 to K-10
Appendix L Temperature Monitoring With I-Button . . . L-1 to L-9
ix
LIST OF TABLES Table No. Title Page No.
Chapter 3.0 3.1 Chloride Permeability Based on charge passed . . . 70 3.2 Summary of the Total Number of Cracks in the Bridges . . 97 3.3 Summary of the Total Number of Deleterious Cracks
(Width >0.18 mm) . . . . . . . 98 3.4 Summary of Total Area of Cracks Per 1000 Sq, ft . . . 98 3.5 Summary of Total Area of Cracks (Width > 0.18 mm)
Per 1000 Sq. ft . . . . . . . 99 3.6 Available Concrete Details for the Inspected Bridge Deck . . 106 3.7 Summary of Finesse Moduli of the Quartzite Aggregates . . 108 3.8 Combined Aggregate Gradation for Quartzite Aggregate . . 108 3.9 Summary of Fineness Moduli Results . . . . 109 3.10 Combined Aggregate Gradation of Blend I (30%, 35%, and 35%) . 110 3.11 Combined Aggregate Gradation of Blend II (23%, 42%, and 35%) . 110 3.12 Combined Aggregate Gradation for Granite Aggregate . . 112 3.13 Mixture Designations . . . . . . . 114 3.14 Mixture Proportions for Trial Mixes of Bridge Deck
Concretes with Quartzite Aggregate . . . . . 115 3.15 Comparison of Compressive Strength of Trial Mixes of
Bridge Deck Concretes with Quartzite Aggregate . . . 116 3.16 Mixture Proportions for Bridge Deck Concretes with
Quartzite Aggregate . . . . . . . 119 3.17 Mixture Proportions for Bridge Deck Concrete with
Limestone Aggregate . . . . . . . 120 3.18 Mixture Proportions for Bridge Deck Concrete with
Granite Aggregate . . . . . . . 121 3.19 Recommended Mixture Proportions for Bridge Deck
Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . . 125 3.20 Recommended Mixture Proportions for Bridge Deck
Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate . . . . . 127 3.21 Recommended Mixture Proportions for Bridge Deck
Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . . 128 3.22 Recommended Mixture Proportions for Bridge Deck
Concrete with Granite Aggregate . . . . . 129 Chapter 4.0 4.1 Summary of Initial and Final Setting Time of Bridge
Deck Concrete . . . . . . . 146 4.2 Comparison of Scaling Resistance for Bridge Deck
Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate . . . . . 148 4.3 Summary of mean percent expansion of Alkali Aggregate
specimens for Bridge deck concrete . . . . . 151
x
4.4 Saturated surface dry Absorption coefficient for Quartzite Bridge Deck concrete . . . . . 155
4.5 Summary of mean percent expansion of Alkali Aggregate specimens of trial mixes for Bridge Deck Concrete . . . 168
4.5.1 Summary of mean percent expansion of Alkali Aggregate specimens for Final Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . 169 4.6 Saturated Surface Dry Absorption Coefficient for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . 173 4.7 Summary of Initial and Final Setting Times of Trial Bridge
Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . 176 4.7.1 Summary of Initial and Final Setting Times of Bridge Deck
Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . . 176 4.8 Comparison of Scaling Resistance for Bridge Deck
Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . . 180 4.9 Summary of Initial and Final Setting Times for Bridge Deck
Concrete with Granite Aggregates . . . . . 202 4.10 Summary of Mean Percent Expansion of Alkali Aggregate
Specimens for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates . 204 4.11 Saturated Surface Dry Absorption Coefficient for Bridge Deck
Concrete with Granite Aggregate . . . .. . 208 4.12 Comparison of Scaling Resistance for Bridge Deck Concrete
with Granite Aggregate . . . . . . 211 4.13 Mix Designations for all the Mixes . . . . . 219 4.14 Change (increase) in temperature observed for all the mixes . . 219 4.15 Compressive Strength of all the mixes at the age of 7 days . . 220
xi
LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Title Page No.
Chapter 3.0 3.1 Gradation of Aggregate [9] . . . . . . 41 3.2 Gradation of Aggregates [10] . . . . . . 42 3.3 Modified Coarseness Factor Chart [2] . . . . 46 3.4 0.45 Power Chart for 1 inch Aggregate . . . . 50 3.5 Well-graded mixture [11] . . . . . . 52 3.6 Gap-graded mixture [11] . . . . . . 52 3.7 Concrete Aggregate Grading Chart [11] . . . . 53 3.8 Near gap-graded mixture [11] . . . . . 55 3.9 Optimum graded mixture [11] . . . . . 55 3.10 Combined gradation (1929 ASTM C33) [11] . . . . 56 3.11 USAF Constructability Chart [23] . . . . . 57 3.12 Well-graded Aggregate [23] . . . . . . 58 3.13 Gap-graded Aggregate [23] . . . . . . 58 3.14 Total Number of Cracks in Bridges (East river) . . . 99 3.15 Total Number of Cracks in Bridges (West River) . . . 100 3.16 Total Area of Cracks per 1000 Sq.ft (East River) . . . 101 3.17 Total Area of Cracks per 1000 Sq.ft (West River) . . . 102 3.18 Total Area of Deleterious Cracks per 1000 Sq.ft (East river) . 102 3.19 Total Area of Deleterious Cracks per 1000 Sq.ft (West river) . 103 3.20 Comparison of Steel and Prestressed Concrete Girder Bridges for
Total Area of Deleterious Cracks per 1000 sq.ft (East River) . 104 3.21 Comparison of Steel and Prestressed Concrete Girder Bridges for Total Area of Deleterious Cracks per 1000 sq.ft (West River) . 105 3.22 Comparison of Compressive Strength of Bridge Deck Concretes
with Quartzite Aggregate (Trial Mix w/c – 0.45) . . . 117 3.23 Comparison of Compressive Strength of Bridge Deck Concretes with Quartzite Aggregate (Trial Mix w/c – 0.45 repeat) . . 117 3.24 Comparison of Compressive Strength of Bridge Deck Concretes
with Quartzite Aggregate (Trial Mix w/c – 0.43) . . . 118 3.25 Comparison of Compressive Strength of Bridge Deck Concretes
with Quartzite Aggregate (Trial Mix w/c – 0.42) . . . 118 3.26 Comparison of Compressive Strength of Bridge Deck Concretes
with Quartzite Aggregate (Trial Mix w/c – 0.4) . . . 119 Chapter 4.0 4.1 Comparison of Slump for Bridge Deck Concrete with
Quartzite Aggregate . . . . . . . 134 4.2 Comparison of Air Content for Bridge Deck Concrete with
Quartzite Aggregate (Mix 1) . . . . . . 135 4.3 Comparison of Unit Weights for Bridge Deck Concrete with
Quartzite Aggregate . . . . . . . 135
xii
4.4 Comparison of Compressive Strengths for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate . . . . . 137
4.5 Comparison of Static modulus for Bridge deck concrete with Quartzite Aggregate . . . . . . 139
4.6 Comparison of Dry Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate . . . . . . 140
4.7 Comparison of Flexural strength for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate . . . . . . 141
4.8 Mean expansion of mortar bars (Quartzite Aggregate) subjected to sulfate solution . . . . . . . 142
4.9 Comparison of Chloride ion permeability for Bridge deck concrete with Quartzite Aggregate . . . . . 143
4.10 Comparison of Drying Shrinkage Deformations for Bridge Deck concrete with Quartzite Aggregate . . . . 144
4.11 Comparison of Drying Shrinkage Deformations at the end of 90 days for Bridge Deck concrete with Quartzite Aggregate . . . 145
4.12 Comparison of Initial Setting time for Bridge deck concrete with Quartzite Aggregate . . . . . . 147
4.13 Comparison of Final Setting time for Bridge deck concrete with Quartzite Aggregate . . . . . . . 147
4.14 ASTM classification chart for Deicer Scaling . . . 149 4.15 Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete – After 50 cycles of
Freezing and Thawing in the presence of Deicing Chemicals . 149 4.16 Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash –
After 50 cycles of Freezing and Thawing in the presence of Deicing Chemicals . . . . . . . 150
4.17 Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash – After 50 cycles of Freezing and Thawing in the presence of Deicing Chemicals . . . . . . . 150
4.18 Comparison of Mean Expansion of Mortar bars subjected to Alkali Solution for Bridge deck concrete with Quartzite aggregate . . 152
4.19 Change in Pulse Velocity for Bridge Deck Concrete specimens with Quartzite Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing . . . . . . . 153
4.20 Comparison of Mean Expansion for Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Quartzite Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing . . . . . . . 154
4.21 Total Unit strain and Unit Shrinkage strains for all the three concretes with Quartzite Aggregate at the end of 60 days . . . . 157
4.22 Comparison of Unit Specific Creep at the end of 60 days for concrete with Quartzite Aggregate . . . . . 158
4.23 Comparison of Creep rate for the Bridge deck concrete with Quartzite Aggregate . . . . . . . 158
4.24 Comparison of Unit Creep Strain and Unit Elastic and Creep Recovery on Unloading for Quartzite Aggregate . . . 159
xiii
4.25 Comparison of Slump for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate (Mix 2) . . . . . . 160
4.26 Comparison of Air Content for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate (Mix 2) . . . . . . 161
4.27 Comparison of Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate (Mix 2) . . . . . . 162
4.28 Comparison of Compressive Strength for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . . 163
4.29 Comparison of Static Modulus for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . . . 165
4.30 Comparison of Dry Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . . . 166
4.31 Comparison of Flexural Strength for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . . . 167
4.32 Comparison of Alkali Aggregate Reactivity for Trial Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . 169
4.33 Comparison of Alkali Aggregate Reactivity for Final Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . 170
4.34 Change in Pulse Velocity for Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Limestone Aggregates subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing . . . . . . . 171
4.35 Comparison of Mean Expansion for Bridge Deck Concrete specimens with Limestone Aggregates subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing . . . . . . . 172
4.36 Comparison of Initial Setting Time for Trial Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . . 176
4.37 Comparison of Initial Setting Time for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . . . 177
4.38 Comparison of Final Setting Time for Trial Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . . 177
4.39 Comparison of Final Setting Time for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . . . 178
4.40 Mean Sulfate Expansions for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . . . . 179
4.41 Control Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete – After 50 cycles of Freezing and Thawing in presence of Deicing Chemicals . . 180 4.42 Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash –
After 50 cycles of Freezing and Thawing in presence of Deicing Chemicals . . . . . . . 181
4.43 Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash – After 50 cycles of Freezing and Thawing in presence of Deicing Chemicals . . . . . . . 181
4.44 Comparison of Permeability values for trial Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . . 184
4.45 Comparison of Permeability values for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . . . 184
xiv
4.46 Comparisons of Drying Shrinkage Deformations for Trial Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregates . . . . 185
4.47 Comparisons of Drying Shrinkage Deformations for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregates . . . . 186 4.48 Comparisons of Drying Shrinkage Deformations at the
end of 90 days for Trial Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregates . . . . . . 186
4.49 Comparisons of Drying Shrinkage Deformations at the end of 90 days for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregates . 187
4.50 Comparison of Total Unit Strains and Unit Shrinkage Strains for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregates . . 188
4.51 Comparison of Unit Specific Creep for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregates . . . . . . 189
4.52 Creep Rate for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregates . . . . . . . . 189
4.53 Comparison of Unit Creep Strain and Unit Elastic Strain and Creep Recovery on Unloading for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregates . . . . . . 190
4.54 Comparison of Slump for Bridge Deck Concrete (Mix 1) with Granite Aggregates . . . . . . . 191
4.55 Comparison of Air Content for Bridge Deck Concrete (Mix 1) with Granite Aggregates . . . . . . 192
4.56 Comparison of Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete (Mix 1) with Granite Aggregates . . . . . . 192
4.57 Comparison of Compressive Strengths for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate . . . . . 194
4.58 Comparison of Static Modulus for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates . . . . . . 196
4.59 Comparison of Dry Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates . . . . . . 197
4.60 Comparison of Flexural Strengths for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates . . . . . . 198
4.61 Mean Sulfate Expansion for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates . . . . . . . 199
4.62 Comparison of Chloride Permeability values for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates . . . . . . 200
4.63 Comparison of Initial Setting Times for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates . . . . . 203
4.64 Comparison of Final Setting Times for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates . . . . . 203
4.65 Comparison of Alkali Aggregate Reactivity for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates . . . . . 205
4.66 Change in Pulse Velocity for Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Granite Aggregate subjected To Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing . . . . . . . 206
xv
4.67 Comparison of Mean Expansion for Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Granite Aggregate Subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing . . . . . . . 207
4.68 Comparison of Drying Shrinkage Deformation for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates . . . . . 210
4.69 Comparison of Drying Shrinkage Deformations at the end of 60 Days for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates . . . . . . . 210
4.70 Control Granite Bridge Deck Concrete – after 50 Cycles of Freezing and Thawing in the presence of Deicing Chemicals . . . . . . . 212
4.71 Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash after 50 Cycles of Freezing and Thawing in the presence of Deicing Chemicals . . . . . . . 212
4.72 Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash after 50 Cycles of Freezing and Thawing in the presence of Deicing Chemicals . . . . . . . 213
4.73 Comparison of Total Unit Strains and Unit Shrinkage Strains for Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates . . 215
4.74 Comparison of Unit Specific Creep for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates . . . . . . 215
4.75 Creep Rate for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates . 216 4.76 Comparison of Unit Creep Strain and Unit Elastic Strain and Creep Recovery on Unloading for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate . . . . . . 217 4.77 Typical Variation of concrete (1OLFB) temperature over a period of 7 days . . . . . . . 225
xvi
GLOSSARY
The following is a glossary of terms for Optimized Aggregate gradation used in this report. 0.1 General Terms 0.45 Power Chart – A cumulative percent-passing grading curve in which the horizontal axis is marked off in sieve-opening sizes raised to the 0.45 power. 8-18 Method – Uses the Percent of aggregate retained on each sieve size, for a well graded aggregate, this percent will be less than 18 but more than 8. A gap-graded aggregate combination will have peaks above 18 percent retained or below 8 percent retained. Admixtures – Admixtures are materials other than water, aggregate, or hydraulic cement, which are added to the batch immediately before or during the mixing operation. Their function is to modify properties of concrete so as to make it more suitable for the work at hand, or for economy, or for other purposes such as saving energy. Air Entraining Agent – An admixture that causes the development of microscopic air bubbles in the concrete during mixing. Air Content – The volume of air voids in concrete, exclusive of pore space in aggregate particles. Alkali Aggregate Reactivity – a chemical reaction of alkali in concrete and certain alkaline reactive minerals in aggregate producing a hygroscopic gel which, when moisture present, absorbs water and expand. Chloride Permeability of Concrete - Measure of concrete’s ability to resist penetration of chloride ions. Coarseness Factor – The coarseness factor for a particular combined aggregate gradation is determined by dividing the amount retained above the 3/8 inch (9.5 mm) sieve by the amount retained above the No.8 sieve (2.36 mm). Curing – Action taken to maintain moisture and temperature conditions in a freshly placed cementitious mixture to allow hydraulic cement hydration and (if applicable) pozzolanic reactions to occur so that the potential properties of the mixture may develop. Creep Strain – Creep is defined as the total strain in a loaded specimen minus the initial elastic strain and the shrinkage in an unloaded companion specimen subjected to a similar environment.
xvii
Creep Recovery – Rate of decrease in deformation that occurs when load is removed after prolonged application in a creep test. Drying Shrinkage/Shrinkage Strain – Drying shrinkage (DS) of concrete is defined as the time dependent deformation due to loss of water at constant temperature and relative humidity (RH). Durability – The ability of concrete to remain unchanged while in service; resistance to weathering action, chemical attack, and abrasion. Dense or Well-Graded Gradation – Refers to a gradation where gap between larger particles is effectively filled by smaller particles.
Elastic Recovery – If a sustained load is removed, the strain decreases immediately by an amount equal to the elastic strain at the given age. Entrained Air – Round, uniformly distributed, microscopic, non-coalescing air bubbles entrained by the use of air-entraining agents; usually less than 1 mm in size. Entrapped Air – Air in concrete that is not purposely entrained. Entrapped air is generally considered to be large voids (larger than 1 mm). Flexural Toughness – The area under the flexural load-deflection curve obtained from a static test of a specimen up to a specified deflection. It is an indication of the energy absorption capability of a material. Fly ash - Fly ash is a finely divided residue, which is the by-product of the combustion of ground or powdered coal exhaust fumes of coal-fired power stations. Gap Graded Gradation – Refers to a gradation that contains only a small percentage of aggregate particles in the mid-size range. Gradation – The particle size distribution of the aggregates is called gradation. Heat of Hydration – Heat of hydration is the heat generated by the chemical reactions, which occur in setting concrete between the water and cement. High Performance Concrete - Concrete in which certain desired properties have been enhanced, for a given application, beyond the properties for plain concrete. High Strength Concrete - Concrete with compressive strength in excess of 42 MPa (6000 psi) is referred to as high strength concrete. iButton – The iButton is a computer chip enclosed in a 16mm stainless steel can, used for recording the temperature with desired time interval.
xviii
Ice Accretion – Growth or increase in size by gradual external addition, fusion, or inclusion. Impact Strength – The total energy required to break a standard test specimen of a specified size under specified impact conditions, as given by ACI Committee 544. Initial Elastic Strain – The initial elastic strain is the strain reading immediately after loading. Intermediate Aggregate – Intermediate aggregate is defined as that with particles passing the 3/8 inch (9.5 mm) sieve but retained on the No. 8 sieve (2.36 mm). Maximum Size of Aggregate (ASTM C-125) – In specifications for, or description of aggregate, the smallest sieve opening through which the entire amount of aggregate is required to pass. Nominal Maximum Size of Aggregate (ASTM C-125) – In specifications for, or description of aggregate, the smallest sieve opening through which the entire amount of aggregate is permitted to pass. Medium Range Water Reducer – An additive that is mixed into the concrete, allows the concrete mix to become easier to work with without adding additional water. Overlay -The addition of a new material layer onto an existing pavement surface. Permeability – Permeability is defined as the coefficient representing the rate at which water is transmitted through a saturated specimen of concrete under an externally maintained hydraulic gradient.
Plastic Shrinkage Cracking - Cracks, usually parallel and only a few inches deep and several feet long, in the surface(s) of concrete pavement that are the result of rapid moisture loss through evaporation.
Portland Cement – A commercial product which when mixed with water alone or in combination with sand, stone, or similar materials, has the property of combining with water, slowly, to form a hard solid mass. Physically, portland cement is a finely pulverized clinker produced by burning mixtures containing lime, iron, alumina, and silica at high temperature and in definite proportions, and then intergrinding gypsum to give the properties desired.
Portland Cement Concrete – A composite material that consists essentially of a binding medium (Portland cement and water) within which are embedded particles or fragments of aggregate, usually a combination of fine aggregate and course aggregate.
xix
Pozzolan – A siliceous or siliceous and aluminous material, which in itself possesses little or no cementitious value but will, in finely divided form and in the presence of moisture, chemically react with calcium hydroxide at ordinary temperatures to form compounds possessing cementitious properties. Prestressed Concrete – Structural concrete in which internal stresses have been introduced to reduce potential tensile stresses in concrete resulting from loads. Relative Humidity – The ratio of the quantity of water vapor actually present in the atmosphere to the amount present in a saturated atmosphere at a given temperature; expressed as a percentage. Retardation – Reduction in the rate of hardening or strength development of fresh concrete, mortar, or grout; i.e., an increase in the time required to reach initial and final set. Segregation – The unintentional separation of the constituents of concrete or particles of an aggregate causing a lack of uniformity in their distribution. Setting of Cement – Development of rigidity of cement paste, mortar, or concrete as a result of hydration of the cement. The paste formed when cement is mixed with water remains plastic for a short time. During this stage it is still possible to disturb the material and remix without injury, but as the reaction between the cement and water continues, the mass loses its plasticity. This early period in the hardening is called the "setting period," although there is not a well-defined break in the hardening process. Shilstone method – Developed by shilstone, uses a grading chart showing the aggregate gradations and the combined gradations for the coarsest, finest, and optimum mixtures. The chart is divided into three segments identified as Q, I, W (Q- The plus 3/8 inch (9.5 mm) sieve particles, I- The minus 3/8 inch (9.5 mm), plus No.8 (2.36 mm) sieve particles, and W- The minus No.8 (2.36 mm) sieve particles). Silica fume – Silica fume is a by-product resulting from the use of high purity quartz with coal in the electric arc furnace in the production of silicon and ferro silicon alloys. Static Modulus – The value of Young’s modulus of elasticity obtained from measuring stress-strain relationships derived from other than dynamic loading. Stress–Strength ratio – The amount of stress applied on the creep specimens with respect to the strength of the concrete at the respective age. Toughness – The ability to absorb energy and deform plastically before fracturing.
xx
Uniformly Graded Gradation –Refers to a gradation that contains most of the particles in a very narrow size range. . USAF Constructability Chart – Developed by U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. This chart makes use of the coarseness factor and workability factor of combined aggregate to decide whether the blend is well graded or gap graded. Water-Cement ratio – The ratio of the mass of water, exclusive only of that absorbed by the aggregates, to the mass of Portland cement in concrete, mortar, or grout, stated as a decimal. Water-Cementitious material ratio – The ratio of the mass of water, exclusive only of that absorbed by the aggregates, to the mass of cementitious material in concrete, mortar, or grout, stated as a decimal. Workability of Concrete – That property determining the effort required to manipulate a freshly mixed quantity of concrete with minimum loss of homogeneity. Workability Factor – The workability factor is the percentage of combined aggregate finer than the No.8 sieve. 0.2 Acronyms Used ACI – American Concrete Institute PCA – Portland Cement Association PCC – Portland Cement Concrete ASTM – American Society of Testing of Materials AASHTO – American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials FHWA – Federal Highway Administration SDDOT – South Dakota Department of Transportation HPC – High Performance Concrete HSC – High Strength Concrete MRWR – Medium Range Water Reducer HRWR – High Range Water Reducer RCPT – Rapid Chloride Permeability Test
xxi
AEA – Air Entraining Agent SDSM&T – South Dakota School of Mines & Technology SSD – Saturated Surface Dry CQB – Control Quartzite Bridgedeck Concrete OQB – Optimum Quartzite Bridgedeck Concrete OQFB –Optimum Quartzite Bridgedeck Concrete with Fly Ash CLB – Control Limestone Bridgedeck Concrete OLB – Optimum Limestone Bridgedeck Concrete OLFB –Optimum Limestone Bridgedeck Concrete with Fly Ash CGB – Control Granite Bridgedeck Concrete OGB – Optimum Granite Bridgedeck Concrete OGFB –Optimum Granite Bridgedeck Concrete with Fly Ash 0.3 ASTM Specifications C 31 - Practices for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Field C 39 - Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens C 78 - Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam with Third- point Loading) C 94 - Specification for Ready-Mixed Concrete C 125 - Terminology Relating to concrete and concrete aggregates C138 - Test for Unit Weight, Yield and Air Content (gravimetric) of concrete C 143 - Test Method for Slump of Portland Cement Concrete C 157 - Test Method for Length Change of Hardened Hydraulic-Cement Mortar and Concrete C 172 - Method of Sampling Freshly Mixed Concrete
xxii
C 173 - Test Method of Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the Volumetric Method C 192 - Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Laboratory C 231 - Test Method for Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the Pressure Method C 293 - Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam With Center-Point Loading) C 403 - Test Method for Time of Setting of Concrete Mixtures by Penetration Resistance C 469 - Test Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson’s Ratio of Concrete in Compression C 490 - Use of Apparatus for the Determination of Length Change of Hardened Cement Paste, Mortar, and Concrete C494 - Standard Specification for Chemical Admixtures for Concrete C 496 - Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens C 512 - Test Method for Creep of Concrete in Compression C 618 - Specification for Fly ash and raw or calcined natural pozzolan for use as a
mineral admixture in Portland Cement Concrete C 666 - Test Method for Resistance of Concrete to Rapid Freezing and Thawing C 672 - Scaling Resistance of Concrete Surfaces Exposed to Deicing Chemicals C 1012 - Test Method for Length Change of Hydraulic-Cement Mortars Exposed to a Sulfate Solution C 1064 - Test Method for Temperature of Freshly Mixed Portland Cement Concrete C 1202 - Test Method for Electrical Indication of Concrete’s Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration C 1260 - Test Method for Potential Alkali Reactivity of Aggregates (Mortar-Bar Method)
1
CHAPTER 1.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Problem Description
In South Dakota newly constructed bridges increasingly showing the early
transverse cracking. This restrained shrinkage cracking is easily identifiable in newly
constructed bridge decks, when the forms are removed. These cracks occur frequently
over the length of the deck at approximately 4.5 to 5.5 feet intervals. This cracking is
undesirable because it allows the ingress of water and chlorides that further damage the
structure. So it was always a challenge to the engineers to design a new set of class A45
concrete for bridge decks which should resist sulfate attack, be resistant to alkali-silica
reactivity (ASR), have minimal drying shrinkage cracking, and be nearly impermeable. If
a concrete appropriately addresses each of these properties then it is likely that bridge
deck maintenance will be reduced and its life would be increased.
There are normally two types of shrinkage cracks, (plastic shrinkage and drying
shrinkage cracks) which occur in bridge decks and pavements. Plastic shrinkage is
defined as the volume reduction that occurs before the concrete hardens. Plastic
shrinkage cracks are random cracks that sometimes occur in the exposed surface of fresh
concrete during or within the first few hours after the concrete has been placed, while the
concrete is still plastic and before attaining any significant strength. Drying shrinkage is
defined as the time dependent volume reduction due to loss of water at constant relative
humidity and temperature. The loss of moisture from concrete after it hardens, and hence,
drying shrinkage, is inevitable unless the concrete is submerged in water or is in an
environment with 100% Relative Humidity (RH). The driving force for drying shrinkage
is evaporation of water from capillary pores in hydrated cement paste at their ends, which
are exposed to air with a relative humidity lower than that within the capillary pores. The
water in the capillary pores, called the free water, is held by forces, which are stronger.
Although several causes may contribute to cracking, one probable cause is the
SDDOT's use of structural concrete mixes based on high cement content and a gap-
graded (one size coarse and fine) aggregate. With the current aggregate gradation, the
concrete mix would contain a high proportion of cement-water paste and high cement
content, which certainly contributes to higher shrinkage cracking in the decks. A review
2
of current literature indicates that concrete mixes that use a well-graded aggregate with a
large top size would result in reduced drying shrinkage cracking. The lower cement
content causes the lower drying shrinkage.
The previous research (Determination of Optimized Fly Ash Content in Bridge
Deck and Bridge Deck Overlay Concrete-Project SD 00-06) has shown that partial
replacement of cement with class F fly ash has slightly reduced the drying shrinkage
compared to the concrete without fly ash. The above-referred study had shown that the
replacement of cement with optimized quantity of fly ash has also improved other fresh
and hardened concrete properties. If the optimized gradations have significant
improvement in reducing the drying shrinkage, then the optimized mixes should be used
in field application.
1.2 Research Objective
To produce a new set of Class A45 Concrete mix design-using SDDOT aggregate
sources-that minimizes drying shrinkage by optimizing the coarse aggregate amount and
gradation, minimizes cement and water content, while maintaining or improving strength,
durability and workability.
1.3 Literature Review
A comprehensive literature review relevant to optimized aggregate gradation for
bridge deck concrete and as well as durability factors related to optimized aggregate
gradation was conducted which helped in the planning and conducting the research
project.
1.4 Blending of Aggregates
Sieve analysis was carried out for various sizes of aggregates on all three coarse
aggregates (Quartzite, Lime stone and Granite) to obtain an optimum blending for the
aggregates. The fineness moduli of the aggregates were evaluated as per ASTM C 136.
Four methods pertaining to obtaining optimized aggregate gradation: 0.45 power
chart, 8-18 method, USAF constructability chart method and Shilstone method, were
studied and used for this investigation. It was found that all the four methods complement
each other to a great extent.
3
It was found that the mix incorporating the 0.45 power chart gradations gave the
highest strength and better workability when compared to other power charts and the
control concrete. Due to its versatility and validity, the 0.45 power chart was used to
obtain the target gradation. Therefore the aim was to obtain an optimum blend whose
gradation would satisfy as nearly as possible the target gradation.
The combined gradation was obtained by blending two coarse aggregate sizes
37.5 mm (1.5 inch), 19 mm (¾ inch) and natural sand. A trial and error method was
adopted with different proportions of the three aggregates mentioned and tried to achieve
the best possible fit which will satisfy all the four methods mentioned. The optimum
proportions for the different type of aggregates, based on the aggregates supplied, are as
follows.
o Quartzite Aggregate : 27.5% (1.5 inch) : 37.5% (¾ inch) : 35% (sand)
o Limestone Aggregate : 30% (1.5 inch) : 35% (¾ inch) : 35% (sand)
o Granite Aggregate : 35% (1.5 inch) : 30% (¾ inch) : 35% (sand)
1.5 Trial Mixes
In order to obtain the concrete with the desired properties, A total of 15 trial
mixes were made with quartzite aggregate, 5 control mixes using the standard aggregate
gradation with 25 mm (1 inch) maximum size aggregate and medium sand, 5 optimized
aggregate proportions blending 37.5 mm and 19 mm (1.5 inch and ¾” inch) aggregates
and 5 optimized aggregate proportions with fly ash. Two cement contents (655 and 600
pcy), 4 water to cement ratios (0.40, 0.42, 0.43 and 0.45) and four different quantities of
air entraining agent were tried. Two different fly ash contents (25% and 20% by weight
of cement) were also tried.
All the mixes had satisfactory workability and finishability. The cast specimens
were tested for compressive strength at the age of 1, 3,7,14 and 28 days. Based on the
analysis of results obtained, the mix with 10% reduction in cement content and with a
blend of 37.5 mm (1.5inch), 19 mm (¾ inch) coarse aggregates and natural sand in
proportion of 27.5%, 37.5% and 35% respectively was chosen as the best mix having all
the properties required for the bridge deck. This mix was selected as the optimum mix
4
based on the results obtained for air content, workability, and compressive strength of the
concretes.
A similar procedure was adopted in the case of limestone and granite aggregates
and respective optimum mixes were obtained. In the case of both these aggregates also
the optimum mix was obtained with 10% reduction in cement content.
1.6 Evaluation of Selected Optimum Mixes
The optimized concrete mixes were developed to reduce the shrinkage cracking as
compared to SDDOT standard A-45 mixes for bridge deck concretes. Along with the
optimum mixes, optimum mixes with fly ash were also tested to compare the results.
Twenty percent of cement by weight was replaced with 25% by weight of fly ash. All the
relevant properties of these optimum concretes and their corresponding SDDOT standard
mixes were determined and compared. The properties evaluated were fresh concrete
properties (slump, air content, unit weight, initial and final setting times) and hardened
concrete properties (compressive strength, modulus of rupture, strength development
with age, drying shrinkage, creep and shrinkage, creep recovery, resistance to sulfate
attack, freeze-thaw durability, resistance to deicer scaling, and alkali-aggregate
reactivity).
1.7 Tests on Fresh Concrete
The freshly mixed concrete was tested for slump (ASTM C143), air content
(ASTM C231), fresh concrete unit weight (ASTM C138), and concrete temperature. The
workability and finishability of the optimum concretes with all three types of aggregates
(quartzite, limestone and granite) with and without water reducer were comparable to that
of the control concrete with all the aggregates. The air contents were in the desired range
of 6.25+1.25 for all the mixes. The fresh concrete unit weights were nearly the same for
all concretes, and had an average value of 2338.7 kg/m3 (146 lbs/cu.ft.) for quartzite
aggregate, 2354.7 kg/m3 (147 lbs/cu.ft) for limestone, 2332.7 kg/m3 (145 lbs/cu.ft) for
granite.
5
Initial and Final Setting Time
For all the three type of aggregates Initial setting time for the optimum mixes was
in the range of 240- 360 minutes, and final setting time was in the range of 272- 392
minutes. Optimum limestone concrete with fly ash had the highest initial setting time of
366 minutes and optimum granite concrete with fly ash had the highest final setting time
of 392 minutes. In using all three aggregates the control concrete had less initial and final
setting times compared to that of optimum mixes. The reason for the increased initial and
final setting time in the optimum mixes may be due to the reduction in cement content. In
the case of optimum mixes with fly ash, the increase in the setting times may be due to
reduction in cement content and addition of fly ash.
1.8 Tests on Hardened Concrete
Compressive Strength
The optimum concretes gave higher compressive strengths than their respective
control concretes in spite of 10% reduction in cement content for all the three aggregates
(limestone, quartzite and granite). This increase in the compressive strength was due to
the use of optimized aggregate gradation. Because of the optimized aggregate gradation
the concrete mix had become more dense and had increased compressive strength. In the
case of optimum mix with fly ash the increase in strength was due to the optimized
aggregate gradation and addition of fly ash. The presence of fly ash reduced the voids in
the concrete and resulted in higher compressive strengths.
Chloride Permeability
The chloride ion permeability values were in the range of 5000 - 7000 coulombs
for the control concretes. The optimum concretes had lesser permeability when compared
to that of the control concretes with all the aggregates (limestone, quartzite and granite).
Well graded aggregates and the addition of the fly ash to the concrete decreased the
chloride ion permeability of the concrete in the optimum mixes. There was about 50%
decrease in the permeability of concrete to the chloride ions in the optimum bridgedeck
concretes when compared to control mixes.
6
Sulfate Resistance of Concrete
In case of quartzite aggregate the mean expansions of control, optimum without
fly ash and optimum with fly ash concretes at the end of 15 weeks were 0.02792%,
0.02200% and 0.01950% respectively. In case of limestone the mean expansions of
control, optimum without fly ash and optimum with fly ash concretes at the end of 15
weeks were 0.02592%, 0.02325% and 0.02108% respectively. For granite the mean
expansions of control, optimum without fly ash and optimum with fly ash concretes at the
end of 15 weeks were 0.02833%, 0.02458% and 0.02233% respectively. In all the
aggregates it can be observed that the optimum mixes had less mean expansion when
compared to that of the control. It can be concluded that the optimized gradation has
increased the resistance of concrete to sulfate attack.
Freeze Thaw Resistance of Concrete
In case of quartzite after 300 cycles of freeze thaw, the durability factor for
optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were more than
control. Mean expansion was also less for the optimum mixes. The mean expansion was
very less for all the concretes and was in the range of 0.00675% - 0.01825%. The
accepted failure criterion is 0.1% expansion. The saturated surface dry absorption
coefficient for the optimum concrete with and without fly ash was less than the control
concrete.
For Limestone and granite aggregates also after 300 cycles of freeze thaw, the
durability factor for optimum mixes was more than that of control. The mean expansion
was very less for all the limestone concretes and was in the range of 0.00875% -
0.01975%. In case of Granite mixes mean expansion was in the range of 0.01350% -
0.02925%. In both the aggregates optimum mixes had less expansion than that of the
control. The saturated surface dry absorption coefficient for the optimum concrete with
and without fly ash was less than the control concrete for both aggregates.
7
Scaling Resistance of Concrete to Deicing Chemicals
The specimens were subjected to 50 cycles of freezing and thawing in the
presence of a deicing chemical (4% calcium chloride solution). The duration of the cycle
was 16hrs freezing and 8hrs of thawing. All the tests were conducted according to ASTM
C 672.
Quartzite and limestone control concretes and the optimum concrete without fly
ash had an ASTM rating of 1 (very light scaling) and the optimum with fly ash had
ASTM rating of 0 (no scaling). Whereas in case of granite the control concrete had
ASTM rating of 1 (very light scaling) and the optimum concrete without and with fly ash
had a rating of 0 (no scaling).
Alkali Aggregate Reactivity of Concrete
With quartzite aggregates control concrete had a percentage expansion of
0.20833%, the optimum concrete without fly ash had an expansion of 0.18400%, and
optimum concrete with fly ash had a mean expansion of 0.03775%, at the end of 14 days.
In the case of limestone the optimum concrete without fly ash had an expansion of
0.11650%, and final mix optimum concrete with fly ash had a mean expansion of
0.06975%, at the end of 14 days. Whereas control concrete had an expansion of
0.13625%,
In the case of granite aggregate the control concrete had a percentage expansion
of 0.17613%, the optimum concrete without fly ash had an expansion of 0.13450%, and
the optimum concrete with fly ash had a mean expansion of 0.04625%.
Optimum mixes with all these aggregates showed lesser mean expansion when
compared to that of the control concrete.
Drying Shrinkage
At the end of 90 days, the control concrete with quartzite aggregate had the
highest unit shrinkage strain of 447 x 10-6, whereas the optimum concrete without fly ash
had 378 x 10-6, and optimum concrete with fly ash had 328 x 10-6.
In case of limestone aggregate the control concrete had the highest unit shrinkage
strain when compared to the optimum concretes. There were reductions of 16% and 25%
in the shrinkage deformations for final optimum limestone concrete without fly ash and
8
final optimum limestone concrete with fly ash respectively when compared to that of the
control concrete, at the end of 60 days.
For granite aggregate at the end of 60 days, the control concrete had the highest
unit shrinkage strain of 397 x 10-6, optimum concrete without fly ash had 335 x 10-6, and
optimum concrete with fly ash had 293 x 10-6.
Creep and Shrinkage of Concrete
The total unit creep strains for control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash
and optimum concrete with fly ash were 465 x 10-6, 378 x 10-6 and 343 x 10-6
respectively at the end of 60 days for quartzite aggregate. The initial unit elastic strain
recovery for control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete
with fly ash were 133 x 10-6, 142 x 10-6 and 143 x 10-6 respectively.
For limestone aggregate the total unit creep strains for control concrete, optimum
concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 465 x 10-6, 378 x 10-6
and 358 x 10-6 respectively at the end of 60 days. The initial unit elastic strain recovery
for control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly
ash were 127 x 10-6, 137 x 10-6 and 140 x 10-6 respectively.
In case of granite aggregate the total unit creep strains for control concrete,
optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 480 x 10-6,
387 x 10-6 and 358 x 10-6 respectively at the end of 60 days. The initial unit elastic strain
recovery for control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete
with fly ash were 130 x 10-6, 139 x 10-6 and 143 x 10-6 respectively.
Temperature monitoring with I-button
Six series of mixes (four with limestone aggregate, one series with granite
aggregate and one with quartzite aggregate) were monitored for temperature using
I-button device. Temperature was monitored for a period of 7 days with an interval of 5
minutes between the readings.
In all the series of mixes control showed more increase in temperature than the
optimum mixes except in the first series, where in the optimum with fly ash mix had
higher increase in temperature. Reason for this was the use of superplasticizer. The
9
reduction in the increase of temperature due to the hydration process in the optimum
mixes was due to the reduction in cement content in these mixes.
1.9 Conclusions
Mixture Proportioning
• A comprehensive literature review relevant to optimized aggregate gradation and
its effect on strength and durability aspects of concrete was done, which helped in
planning and conducting this research project.
• Four methods pertaining to obtaining optimized aggregate gradation: 0.45 power
chart, 8-18 method, USAF constructability chart method and Shilstone method,
were studied and used for this investigation. It was found that all the four methods
complement each other to a great extent.
• Historically, the 0.45 power chart was used to develop uniform gradations for
asphalt mix designs. For the first time anywhere in the world a detailed
investigation was carried out to determine the validity of the 0.45 power chart and
its applicability to concrete mix designs. Because of the intermediate particles, the
concrete mix incorporating the 0.45 power chart gradations gave the best
workable mix with the maximum strength.
• Due to its versatility and validity, the 0.45 power chart was used to obtain the
target gradation. Therefore the aim was to obtain an optimum blend whose
gradation would satisfy as nearly as possible the target gradation.
• For practical considerations, in order to make it easier for aggregate suppliers,
only two standard sizes, 37.5 mm and 19 mm (1.5 inch and ¾ inch maximum
sizes), of coarse aggregates were selected for blending with medium sand (FM =
2.84) to satisfy the target gradation. Therefore it was realized that an exact fitting
with the 0.45 power chart would not be always possible to achieve. Still an almost
close fit with the 0.45 power chart’s target gradation was obtained for both
quartzite and limestone aggregates. The combined optimized aggregate gradation
that satisfied the 0.45 power chart was then compared with the Shilstone
gradations, USAF constructability chart and the 8-18 method for compatibility. It
was found that the obtained gradation was compatible with all the 4 methods.
10
• Since the supplied coarse granite aggregates were crushed aggregates and there
was a greater variation in the shape and texture of the aggregates, it was more
difficult to get the exact fit with the 0.45 power chart and compatible with
Shilstone method, USAF and 8-18 methods.
• By trial and error the following proportions were chosen for each aggregate,
based on the aggregates supplied, that when blended gave the optimized aggregate
gradation.
o Quartzite Aggregate : 27.5% (1.5 inch) : 37.5% (¾ inch) : 35% (sand)
o Limestone Aggregate : 30% (1.5 inch) : 35% (¾ inch) : 35% (sand)
o Granite Aggregate : 35% (1.5 inch) : 30% (¾ inch) : 35% (sand)
• After optimizing the aggregate gradation the cement content in the concrete mix
was optimized (to reduce shrinkage cracks in concrete) without compromising the
strength, durability and workability requirements. Different percentage reductions
of cement content (8.4%, 10% and 15%) were tried extensively, and tested for
strength and workability characteristics. It was found that concrete mixes made
with 10% reduction in cement content (compared to the corresponding control
concrete) gave the optimum results. Even though there was a 10% reduction in
cement content, a corresponding strength reduction was not observed because of
the use of optimized aggregate gradation.
• The influence of different percentages of cement content (8.4% & 10% for
quartzite aggregate concretes, 10 & 15% for limestone aggregate concretes and
10% for granite aggregate) on the durability characteristics of concretes were also
determined and are also reported. Similarity of the durability test results was
observed in case of quartzite aggregate where the two sets of mixes were done
with different percentages (8.4 % and 10%) of cement reduction Similarity of
durability test results was not observed for concretes made with limestone
aggregates with different percentages reduction in cement content (10% & 15%).
• It was found from trial mixes that by using well-graded aggregates the cement
content could be reduced to a maximum of 10% without compromising the
strength, durability and workability of concrete.
11
Workability, Finishability and Setting times (Fresh Concrete Properties)
All the three mixes, control, optimum without fly ash and optimum with fly ash
were easily workable, even though the optimum mixes had a reduction of 10.0% in the
cement content with all three aggregates (quartzite, limestone and granite).
The finishability for control and optimum mixes without fly ash was good. The
finishability of the optimum mixes with fly ash was very good because of more paste
content. Appropriate amount of medium range waster reducer and air entraining agent
were added to meet the SDDOT requirements of slump and the air content.
Optimum concretes without and with fly ash with all the three aggregates
(quartzite, limestone and granite) had an increase of 12% to 19% in initial setting time
when compared to the control concrete. Whereas this increase was about 21% to 70% in
final setting for optimum concretes without and with fly ash for all the three aggregates
(quartzite, limestone and granite).
Compressive Strength and Modulus of Rupture (Flexural Strength)
At the age of 28-days optimum concretes (with quartzite, limestone and granite)
without fly ash and with fly ash had more compressive strength than their respective
control concrete. The increase in strength was in the range of 2.5% to 24%. The same
trend was observed for all the ages upto 90 days.
At the age of 28-days optimum concretes (with quartzite, limestone and granite)
without fly ash and with fly ash had more flexural strength than their respective control
concrete. The increase in strength was in the range of 2.0% to 18%.
Durability Related Properties
In the case of sulfate resistance of concrete test (ASTM C 1012) it was found that
at the end of 15 weeks in all three types of aggregates (quartzite, limestone and granite)
the optimum concretes without and with fly ash had less mean expansion than that of the
control concrete. Reduction in the mean expansion for optimum concretes in all the three
aggregates (quartzite, limestone and granite) without fly ash was in the range of 10% to
18%, whereas for the optimum concretes with fly ash this reduction was in the range of
19% to 29% at the end of 15 weeks.
12
In the case of drying shrinkage test (ASTM C 157) a reduction in the range of
15% to 16% in shrinkage deformations of optimum concretes without fly ash in all three
aggregates (quartzite, limestone and granite) was observed when compared to control
concrete at the end of 60 days. This reduction was in the range of 25% to 27% in the case
of optimum concretes with fly ash at the end of 60 days.
It was observed that in the alkali aggregate reactivity test (ASTM C 1260) there
was a reduction of 10% to 24% in the mean expansion of the optimum concretes without
fly ash in all three aggregates (quartzite, limestone and granite) at the end of 14 days. In
the case of optimum concretes with fly ash this reduction was in the range of 49% to 85%
at the end of 14 days.
The creep and shrinkage test (ASTM C 512) indicated that at the end of 60 days
of sustained loading, there was a reduction of 19% to 26% in the total unit creep strains
for optimum mixes without and with fly ash in all three aggregates (quartzite, limestone
and granite) when compared to the control concretes. The unit creep recovery for 10 days
upon unloading was in the range of 15% to 17% for control concretes and 20% to 23%
for optimum concretes without fly ash and with fly ash for all three aggregates (quartzite,
limestone and granite).
In the case of the Rapid Chloride permeability test (ASTM C 1202) for concretes
with all three aggregates (quartzite, limestone and granite) the chloride permeability was
rated high for both control and optimum concretes without fly ash and this rating was
moderate for optimum concrete with fly ash at 56 days. At 90 days, in concretes with all
three aggregates (quartzite, limestone and granite) the chloride permeability was rated
high for both control and optimum concretes without fly ash. For optimum concrete with
fly ash the rating was low for quartzite and moderate for limestone and granite concretes.
In the Scaling Resistance of Concrete to Deicing Chemicals test (ASTM C 672)
all control concretes (quartzite, limestone and granite) had very light scaling at the end of
50 cycles, whereas all the optimum concretes (quartzite, limestone and granite) without
fly ash and with fly ash showed good resistance to the deicer scaling, even when the
cement content was reduced by 10 percent.
In the Freeze thaw resistance of concrete test (ASTM C 666) after 300 cycles of
freeze thaw all the optimum concretes (quartzite, limestone and granite) without fly ash
13
and with fly ash had higher durability factors and less mean expansions than control
concretes. In all concretes (quartzite, limestone and granite) control, optimum without
and with fly ash had the durability factors in the range of 88 – 91 indicating very good
freeze thaw resistance (ASTM C 494 sets the minimum durability factor at 80%).
Concrete Plastic Shrinkage Reduction Potential
Tests were conducted to determine the plastic shrinkage cracking potential of
concrete mixes (control, optimum without fly ash and optimum with fly ash) with all
aggregates. All the mixes did not crack. When the temperature is very high and the wind
velocity is much higher than that used in the laboratory 22 km/hr (15 miles/hr) as occurs
sometimes in the field, then there may be plastic shrinkage cracking. These conditions
could not be simulated in the lab.
Concrete Temperature Monitoring
It was found that in the optimum mixes without fly ash the reduction in the
increase of temperature due to the hydration process was proportional to reduction in the
cement content. The reason for the lesser increase in temperature in optimum mix with
fly ash may be due to higher percentage reduction in cement and the use of fly ash. This
reduction in cement content and use of fly ash might have reduced the heat of hydration,
which in turn reduced the temperature of concrete. There was a good correlation between
the setting time and the temperature of concrete. It was found that optimum mixes had
higher setting times when compared to controls, due to less cement content. Because of
less cement content in optimum mixes, temperature increase was less and resulted in
higher setting times. I-button proved to be an effective tool for monitoring continuously
the exact temperature variation in the concrete.
1.10 Recommendations
It is recommended that 37.5 mm (1.5 in) maximum size aggregate with the
recommended target gradation, as determined by the 0.45 power chart, for the combined
coarse and fine aggregates with a tolerance of + 3 should be used for all the aggregates (
quartzite, limestone and granite). The target gradation is given below:
14
Target gradation with allowable tolerance
1.51
3/41/23/8
No. 4No. 8No. 16No. 30No. 50No. 100
118
39292116
1008374
5461
13-198-145-11
51-5736-4226-3218-24
97-10080-8671-7758-64
Sieve Size (in)
Target Gradation
Allowable Limits (+ or - 3 tolerance)
2 Because of the possible variation in the aggregate shape, size and the gradation
even from the same supplier, it is recommended that individual sieve analysis for
37.5 mm (1.5 in) and 19 mm (¾ in) and medium sand should be done. These
aggregates should be blended in suitable proportions by trial and error to obtain
the proposed target gradation. Compatibility of the obtained combined gradation
should be checked with Shilstone method, USAF constructability chart and 8-18
method. If necessary some field adjustments can be made to ensure compatibility
with Shilstone, USAF constructability chart and 8-18 method. It should be noted
that it may not be always possible with a particular aggregates to satisfy all the
four methods.
3 The best possible blend with the available coarse aggregate sizes 37.5 mm (1.5 in)
and 19 mm (¾ in) and medium sand that matched the target gradation was
obtained for all the three supplied aggregates (quartzite, limestone and granite)
from the South Dakota Aggregate suppliers ( the sieve analysis of the supplied
aggregates are included in the report). The combined gradations thus obtained by
blending for all the three aggregates (quartzite, limestone and granite) are given
below:
15
Combined gradations for the aggregates (Quartzite, limestone and granite)
Quartzite Limestone Granite1.5 100 99 100 1001 83 83 88 99
3/4 74 74 75 911/2 61 66 58 783/8 54 52 48 60
No. 4 39 37 36 37No. 8 29 33 32 32
No. 16 21 26 25 25No. 30 16 14 16 16No. 50 11 4 8 7No. 100 8 1 2 2
Combined Gradation Sieve Size (in) Target Gradation
4. A method proposed in the investigation can be used to arrive at the percentages of
the three aggregates to be combined. For the three aggregates (quartzite,
limestone and granite) and medium sand obtained from the South Dakota
aggregate suppliers, the mixture proportions obtained in this investigation are
given below:
Recommended Mixture Proportions for the Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate
IngredientVolume
Proportions (ft3)
Volume Proportions
(ft3)Cement 614.00 pcy 3.10 492.00 pcy 2.49Fly Ash 0.00 pcy 0.00 154.00 pcy 0.99Coarse Aggregate 1.5" 813.00 pcy 4.95 815.00 pcy 4.97
1.0" 0.00 pcy 0.00 0.00 pcy 0.003/4" 1108.00 pcy 6.75 1110.00 pcy 6.76
Fine Aggregate 1033.00 pcy 6.32 1036.00 pcy 6.34Water 256.00 pcy 4.10 231.00 pcy 3.70Air 6.50 % 1.76 6.50 % 1.76Total 27.00 27.00W/C RatioW/CM Ratio
OQB - Optimuum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete (Without Fly ash)OQFB -
pcy -
The following values of specific gravities were used for the calculation of volume proportions:Cement - 3.17; Fly Ash - 2.50; Coarse Aggregate - 2.63; Fine Aggregate - 2.62
Optimuum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete (With Fly ash)
Weight Proportions Weight
Proportions
0.42 0.47
OQB OQFB
0.360.42
pounds per cubic yard
16
Recommended Mixture Proportions for the Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate
IngredientVolume
Proportions (ft3)
Volume Proportions
(ft3)Cement 619.00 pcy 3.13 496.00 pcy 2.51Fly Ash 0.00 pcy 0.00 155.00 pcy 0.99Coarse Aggregate 1.5" 893.00 pcy 5.34 898.00 pcy 5.37
1.0" 0.00 pcy 0.00 0.00 pcy 0.003/4" 1043.00 pcy 6.24 1045.00 pcy 6.25
Fine Aggregate 1043.00 pcy 6.38 1045.00 pcy 6.39Water 260.00 pcy 4.17 233.00 pcy 3.73Air 6.50 % 1.76 6.50 % 1.76Total 27.00 27.00W/C RatioW/CM Ratio
OLB - OLFB -
pcy -
OLB OLFB
0.360.42
The following values of specific gravities were used for the calculation of volume proportions:Cement - 3.17; Fly Ash - 2.50; Coarse Aggregate - 2.68; Fine Aggregate - 2.62
Optimuum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete (Without Fly ash)Optimuum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete (With Fly ash)pounds per cubic yard
Weight Proportions Weight
Proportions
0.42 0.47
Recommended Mixture Proportions for the Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate
IngredientVolume
Proportions (ft3)
Volume Proportions
(ft3)Cement 612.00 pcy 3.09 491.00 pcy 2.48Fly Ash 0.00 pcy 0.00 154.00 pcy 0.99Coarse Aggregate 1.5" 1030.00 pcy 6.32 1033.00 pcy 6.34
1.0" 0.00 pcy 0.00 0.00 pcy 0.003/4" 882.00 pcy 5.42 885.00 pcy 5.43
Fine Aggregate 1030.00 pcy 6.30 1033.00 pcy 6.32Water 257.00 pcy 4.12 231.00 pcy 3.70Air 6.50 % 1.76 6.50 % 1.76Total 27.00 27.00W/C RatioW/CM Ratio
OGB - OGFB -
pcy -
OGB OGFB
0.360.42
The following values of specific gravities were used for the calculation of volume proportions:Cement - 3.17; Fly Ash - 2.50; Coarse Aggregate - 2.61; Fine Aggregate - 2.62
Optimuum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete (Without Fly ash)Optimuum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete (With Fly ash)pounds per cubic yard
Weight Proportions Weight
Proportions
0.42 0.47
Notes for all Tables
SI unit conversion Factors: 1pcy = 0.593 kg/m3, 1 ft3 = 0.028 m3, 1 in = 25.4 mm
1. Appropriate quantity of air entraining agent should be used to obtain the required air content.
2. Whenever required, an appropriate quantity of water reducing agent (either mid
range or high range) should be used to achieve the specified slump.
17
5. Based on a very comprehensive and extensive laboratory investigation, it is
recommended that the optimum graded mixture proportions with class F fly ash
should be specified for bridge deck concrete. Compared to plain deck concrete,
the benefits of using fly ash deck concrete as demonstrated in this project, are
substantial reduction in the chloride ion penetrability (a “low” value as per ASTM
C 1202), reduced corrosion potential, higher modulus concrete, reduced plastic
shrinkage, reduced drying shrinkage, reduced early temperature rise due to the
hydration activity, less micro-cracking, higher durability, better workability and
good finishability. Additional benefits are reduced creep, better bond, higher
resistance to sulfate attack, less expansion due to alkali-aggregate reaction, less
deicer scaling and higher freeze thaw durability factor. It is recommended that
20% of the cement by weight should be replaced with 25% by weight of Class F
fly ash.
6. In cases where the water to cementitious ratios are very low (in the range of 0.28
to 0.32) and mineral admixture such as fly ash is used, high range water reducers
are recommended. In cases where w/c ratio is around 0.40, mid range water
reducers may be sufficient. Addition of large quantities of mid range water
reducers lowers the rate of strength gain.
7. When optimized aggregate concretes are used, it is recommended that the
following quality control tests should be conducted in the field using ASTM test
procedures for the fresh concrete: slump, unit weight, air content and the concrete
temperature. The ambient temperature, humidity and the wind velocity should be
recorded during the bridge deck concrete placement. The compressive strength
and static modulus tests should be conducted on the field samples collected and
cured according to the ASTM standard procedures at 28 days.
18
CHAPTER 2.0
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVE
2.1 Problem Description
Although designers are confident of their bridge deck design, the materials that
are used for construction may eventually cause problems. Bridge decks should resist
sulfate attack, be resistant to alkali-silica reactivity (ASR), have minimal drying and/or
shrinkage cracking, and be nearly impermeable. If a concrete appropriately addresses
each of these properties then it is likely that bridge deck maintenance will be reduced and
its life would be increased. There are normally two types of shrinkage cracks, (plastic
shrinkage and drying shrinkage cracks) which occur in bridge decks and pavements.
Plastic shrinkage is defined as the volume reduction that occurs before the
concrete hardens. Plastic shrinkage cracks are random cracks that sometimes occur in the
exposed surface of fresh concrete during or within the first few hours after the concrete
has been placed, while the concrete is still plastic and before attaining any significant
strength. Such cracks are caused by the evaporation of surface water, and consequent
drying and shrinking of the exposed surface of the plastic concrete. The major cause of
plastic shrinkage cracking is an excessively rapid evaporation of water from the concrete
surface. The occurrence of plastic shrinkage cracks is sporadic. Even when the same
materials, proportions and methods of mixing, placing, finishing, and curing are used, the
cracks may occur on one day, but not the next. This is due to changes in weather
conditions that cause variations in the rate of evaporation.
Drying shrinkage is defined as the time dependent volume reduction due to loss of
water at constant relative humidity and temperature. The loss of moisture from concrete
after it hardens, and hence, drying shrinkage, is inevitable unless the concrete is
submerged in water or is in an environment with 100% Relative Humidity (RH). The
driving force for drying shrinkage is evaporation of water from capillary pores in
hydrated cement paste at their ends, which are exposed to air with a relative humidity
19
lower than that within the capillary pores. The water in the capillary pores, called the free
water, is held by forces, which are stronger.
In South Dakota, new bridge decks increasingly show early transverse cracking.
This restrained shrinkage cracking is easily identifiable in newly constructed bridge
decks, when the forms are removed. These cracks occur frequently over the length of the
deck at approximately 1.37 m to 1.68 m (4.5 to 5.5 feet) intervals. This cracking is
undesirable because it allows the ingress of water and chlorides that further damage the
structure. Although several causes may contribute to cracking, one probable cause is the
Department's use of structural concrete mixes based on high cement content and a gap-
graded (one size coarse and fine) aggregate. With the current aggregate gradation, the
concrete mix would contain a high proportion of cement-water paste and high cement
content, which certainly contributes to higher shrinkage cracking in the decks. A review
of current literature indicates that concrete mixes that use a well-graded aggregate with a
large top size would result in reduced drying shrinkage cracking. The lower cement
content causes the lower drying shrinkage. Review of literature has shown that it is
certainly possible to lower the cement paste content by a more well graded aggregate
concrete.
Although other studies using different aggregate sources have indicated that well
graded aggregate would require less cement paste, trial batches of structural concrete
with South Dakota aggregates should be prepared and tested to optimize the aggregate
gradation for minimum cement paste content. The three types of aggregates currently
used in South Dakota, namely quartzite, limestone, and granite should be tested
individually for the optimization. There are also three types of sand (Fine, Medium and
Coarse sand) available in South Dakota. All three types must be included in the
optimization study.
The previous research (Determination of Optimized Fly Ash Content in Bridge
Deck and Bridge Deck Overlay Concrete-Project SD 00-06) has shown that partial
replacement of cement with class F fly ash has slightly reduced the drying shrinkage
compared to the concrete without fly ash. Therefore the testing should be conducted to
determine the effect of partial replacement of cement with Class F Fly ash. The above-
referred study had shown that the replacement of cement with optimized quantity of fly
20
ash has also improved other fresh and hardened concrete properties. Structural concretes
with the optimized aggregate gradation should be also compared to SDDOT's normal
structural concrete to assess the improvement of properties, particularly the drying
shrinkage, permeability, freeze thaw, durability, compressive strength and unit weight.
If the optimized gradations have significant improvement in reducing the drying
shrinkage, then the optimized mixes should be used in field application. It is proposed to
use the concrete with the optimized aggregate in the construction of bridge decks . These
newly constructed bridge decks would be monitored and evaluated. The evaluation would
consist of detailed mapping of the length, width, and area of cracking in the bridge decks
and comparing them with the performance of previously constructed bridges with the
SDDOT normal structural concrete.
2.2 Research Objective
1. To produce a new set of Class A45 Concrete mix designs-using SDDOT
aggregate sources-that minimize drying shrinkage by optimizing the coarse aggregate
amount and gradation, and minimize cement and water content, while maintaining or
improving strength, durability and workability.
2.3 Materials
2.3.1 Cement
Type I/II normal Portland cement satisfying the requirement of ASTM C150 was
used for all mixes. The cement was supplied by Dacotah cement.
2.3.2 Coarse Aggregate
The coarse aggregate used was crushed quartzite, limestone and granite. Three
different sizes of the coarse aggregate were used; they were 37.5 mm (1.5 inch), 25 mm
(1 inch) and 19 mm (¾ inch) maximum size, which had a water absorption coefficient of
0.5%. The quartzite and granite aggregates were supplied by SDDOT, Sioux Falls,
limestone aggregate obtained from Hills Material, Rapid City.
21
2.3.3 Fine Aggregate
The fine aggregate used for all the mixes made with limestone was natural sand
with a water absorption coefficient of 1.6%. It was obtained from Hill City Materials,
Rapid City, South Dakota. The fine aggregate used for all the mixes made with quartzite
was natural sand obtained from SDDOT, Sioux Falls, South Dakota with a water
absorption coefficient of 1.16%. Both the coarse and the fine aggregates were according
to the grading requirements of ASTM C 33.
2.3.4 Water
The water used was tap water from the Rapid City Municipal water supply
system.
2.3.5 Admixtures
The mineral admixtures used were:
• Fly Ash (Class F) supplied by ISG Resources Inc, Underwood, North Dakota.
The chemical admixtures used were:
• Standard Air Entraining Agent (AEA) Daravair supplied by Grace
Construction Products, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and
• High Range Water Reducer (HRWR) Daracem – 50 supplied by Grace
Construction Products, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
2.4 Tests on Concrete
2.4.1 Tests on fresh concrete The freshly mixed concrete was tested for slump (ASTM C 143), air content
(ASTM C 231), fresh concrete unit weight (ASTM C 138), and concrete temperature
(ASTM C 1064).
22
2.4.2 Tests on hardened concrete
2.4.2.1 Compressive strength and static modulus Cylinders were tested for static modulus (ASTM C 469) prior to compressive
strength (ASTM C 39) at 28 days. The size of the cylinders used was 100 mm x 200 mm
(4in. x 8 inches.)
2.4.2.2 Modulus of Rupture Test
The beams were tested at 28 days for the flexural strength in accordance with
the ASTM C 78, which was a load-control test. The beams were tested over a simply
supported span of 300 mm (12 inches) and third point loading was applied to the beams.
The size of the beam used was 100 mm x 100 mm x 350 mm (4 x 4 x 14 inches).
2.4.3 Durability Tests on Concrete
The following tests were done for all the mixes:
1. Determination of initial and final setting time ASTM C 403
2. Standard Test Method for Scaling Resistance of Concrete Surfaces Exposed to
Deicing Chemicals ASTM C 672
3. Standard Test Method for Length Change of Hydraulic-Cement Mortars Exposed
to a Sulfate Solution ASTM C 1012
4. Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of Concrete's Ability to Resist
Chloride Ion Penetration ASTM C 1202
5. Standard test method for potential alkali reactivity of aggregates ASTM C 1260
2.4.3.1 Determination of Initial and Final Setting Time (ASTM C 403)
Scope This test method covers the determination of the time of setting of concrete, with
slump greater than zero, by means of penetration resistance measurements on mortar
sieved from the concrete mixture.
23
Summary of test method A mortar sample was obtained by sieving the representative sample of fresh
concrete through U.S sieve No.4 (4.75 mm sieve) to remove the coarse aggregates. The
mortar was placed in the container of size 152.4 x 762 x 152.4 mm (6 x 30 x 6 inches)
and stored at the specified ambient temperature. At regular time intervals, the resistance
of the mortar to penetration by standard needles was measured. Plots of penetration
resistance versus elapsed time were drawn, for each plot the initial and final setting times
were determined when the penetration resistance equaled 3.5 MPa (500 psi) and 28 MPa
(4000 psi) respectively.
Conditioning The specimens were stored under laboratory conditions, i.e. the storage
temperature was within the range of 20 to 250C (68 to 770F).
Procedure Just prior to the penetration test, bleed water from the surface of the mortar
specimens was removed by means of a pipette. A needle of appropriate size, depending
upon the degree of setting of the mortar, in the penetration resistance apparatus was
inserted and the bearing surface of the needle was brought into contact with the mortar
surface. A vertical force was applied gradually and uniformly downward on the apparatus
till the needle penetrated the mortar to a depth of 25.4 +/- 1.6 mm (1+/- 1/16 in.) as
indicated by the scribe mark in the needle. The time required to penetrate to the 25.4 mm
(1 in.) depth was maintained at 10 + 2 seconds. The force required to produce a
penetration of 25.4 mm (1 in.) and the time of application, measured as the elapsed time
after initial contact of cement and water were recorded. The penetration resistances were
calculated by dividing the recorded force by the bearing area of the needle.
2.4.3.2 Scaling Resistance of Concrete Surfaces Exposed to Deicing
Chemicals (ASTM C 672)
Scope
This test method covers the determination of the resistance to scaling of a
24
Concrete surface exposed to freezing and thawing cycles in the presence of deicing
chemicals.
Test Specimens The specimens used for this test were two nos. of 355.6 x 152.4 x 152.4 mm (14 x
6 x 6 in.) concrete beams. These beams conformed to ASTM specification of minimum
surface area of 46451.5 mm2 (72 in2) and minimum depth of 76.2 mm (3 in.)
Curing and Storage
Immediately after demolding, the specimens were kept in the moist curing room
for 14 days. After the completion of the moist curing period the beams were air cured for
14 days in the laboratory.
Procedure Immediately after the specified curing period the flat surface of the specimen was
covered with ¼ in of calcium chloride solution having a concentration such that 100 mL
of solution contained 4 g of anhydrous calcium chloride. Then the specimen was
subjected to freezing and thawing cycles. The time duration for the one cycle was a
freezing cycle of 18 hr and 6 hr for the thawing cycle. The test was done for 50 cycles.
Then the scaling on the horizontal surface was rated according to ASTM rating system.
2.4.3.3 Length Change of Mortar Bars Exposed to Sulfate Solution (ASTM
C 1012)
Scope This test method covers the determination of length change of mortar bars
immersed in sodium sulfate solution (PH 7.2) and the compressive strength of concrete
cubes exposed to sulfate solution.
Test specimens The test specimens used for this test were six 25.4 x 25.4 x 285.7mm
(1x1x11.25in.) mortar bars and twenty-one 50.8 mm (2 in.) cubes of concrete. All the six
mortar bars and the twenty one cubes were kept in the sodium sulfate solution after the
concrete cubes attained compressive strength of 20.68 ± 1 MPa (3000 ± 150 psi).
25
Curing and Storage
After molding, the molds were covered and placed in the curing room for twenty-
four hours and then demolded. After demolding and prior to the test they were placed in
saturated limewater.
Procedure Immediately after demolding the cube specimens were tested for their
compressive strength. If the compressive strength of 20.68 ± 1 MPa (3000 ± 150 psi) was
achieved then the cubes were placed in the sodium sulfate solution, which had a PH of
7.2. If the compressive strength of 20.68 ± 1 MPa (3000 ± 150 psi) was not achieved then
the bars and the cubes were kept in the saturated limewater till they attained the desired
strength. Immediately after achieving the desired strength the length of the mortar bars
was recorded and then they were immersed in the sodium sulfate solution. At 1,2,3,4,8,13
and 15 weeks after the bars were placed in the sulfate solution the length comparator
readings were taken in accordance with ASTM C 490. The cubes were tested for their
compressive strength according to ASTM C 109.
Formulae used for Calculations
Length change in Percent Lc =((l2-l1)/Lg) x 100
Lc = length change of the test specimen after C cycles of freezing and thawing, %,
l1 = length comparator reading at 0 cycles,
l2 = length comparator reading after C cycles,
Lg = the effective gage length between the innermost ends of the gage studs.
2.4.3.4 Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (RCPT) (ASTM C 1202)
Scope This test determines the electrical conductance of concrete to provide a rapid
indication of its resistance to the penetration of chloride ions.
26
Test Specimens The 100 mm x 200 mm (4 in. x 8 in.) cylinders were cut to a thickness of 50 mm
(2 in.) from the top (finished) surface by using a concrete saw (the saw used was a
diamond saw). This slice was used as the test specimen.
Conditioning • A liter or more of tap water was boiled vigorously and then allowed to cool to the
room temperature in a sealable container.
• The specimens were allowed to surface dry in air for one hour. A sufficient amount of
rapid setting epoxy was mixed in a plastic container. This epoxy was then coated on
the circumferential sides of the specimens using a brush.
• The specimens were then placed in the vacuum dessicator such that both ends of each
specimen were exposed. The edges of the lid were cleaned and lightly oiled. The lid
was then placed on the dessicator and the vacuum pump was turned on. The vacuum
was maintained at -0.8 BAR (-13 psi) for 3 hours.
• After three hours, the separatory funnel was filled with deaerated water. With the
vacuum pump still running, the water stopcock was opened and sufficient water was
let into the dessicator to completely submerge the specimens. The stopcock was then
closed and the vacuum pump was run for one additional hour.
• At the end of the additional hour the vacuum pump was turned off and the vacuum
line stopcock was opened to let in the air and the specimens were allowed to soak
under water for 18+2 hours.
Test Procedure • The specimens were removed from the vacuum dessicator and were prevented
from drying. Then the inside surface of the rubber gaskets were coated with a cell
sealant. The sealant used was SILICONE.
• One of the gaskets was placed in the space above the mesh. Then the specimen
was pushed into the gasket. The spacer was placed over the specimen and the
other gasket was positioned at the end of the specimen. Finally, the second half of
the cell was positioned over the gasket and was fixed with the help of bolts with
washers and nuts.
27
• The specimen was positioned in the measuring cell containing a fluid reservoir on
each end of the specimen. One reservoir was filled with 3% sodium chloride
(NaCl) solution and the other with 0.3 N sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution. The
specimen was positioned such that the finished surface of the specimen was
facing the NaCl reservoir and the cut surface facing the NaOH reservoir. The
reservoir containing NaCl is connected to the negative terminal; the NaOH
reservoir is connected to the positive terminal of the power supply.
• The lead wires were attached to cell electrical connectors and the cells were
connected to the power supply. The power supply used was PROOVE IT (PR-
1050 bought from Germann Instruments, Inc.). The power supply was turned on
and the voltage was set to 60 VDC. The computer program used (PR-1040
Software supplied by Germann Instruments) recorded the current (in mA) and
temperature (in oC) values every 5 minutes.
• The test was terminated after six hours. The specimen was removed and the cells
were rinsed thoroughly in tap water and the residual sealant was stripped out and
discarded. The table below shows the classification of the chloride ion
permeability.
Charge Passed in Coulombs Chloride Ion Permeability
> 4000
2000 – 4000
1000 – 2000
100 – 1000
< 100
High
Moderate
Low
Very Low
Negligible
2.4.3.5 Standard test method for potential alkali reactivity of aggregates (ASTM C 1260)
Scope This test method provides a means for accelerated detection of the potentially
deleterious internal expansion of the mortar bars due to alkali-silica reaction within 16
28
days. It is useful for aggregates that react slowly or produce expansion late in the
reaction.
Test specimens Prisms of size 25.4 x 25.4 x 285 mm (1 x 1 x 11.25 inches) having a 250 mm (10
in) gage length were used for AAR testing. Four specimens were done for each mix and
the average percent expansion was reported. Each specimen was inserted with two
stainless steel gage studs to facilitate the measurement of percent expansion of the alkali-
aggregate mortar bars.
Procedure Mortar sample was obtained by sieving the representative sample of fresh
concrete through U.S sieve No.4 (4.75 mm sieve) to remove the coarse aggregates. A thin
layer of oil was smeared to the inner faces of the prisms. Mortar was filled into the prisms
in two layers with each layer being compacted using a rubber tamper. The mortar was
tamped into the corners, around the gage studs, and along the surfaces of the mold until a
homogenous specimen was obtained. The top layer was smoothened with a few strokes of
trowel. The specimens (4 numbers for each mix) were kept in the moist room
immediately after the molds were filled with mortar. The specimens were allowed to
remain in the molds (in the moist curing room) for 24 hours and then removed. These
specimens were transferred into plastic container (resistant to heat and inert to alkali
made by Rubbermaid) and were completely immersed in tap water for 24 hours. Small
Plexi-glass pieces were used as supports in order to provide maximum access around the
specimens for the medium (water/NaOH) in the container. The whole container was
placed in a convection oven with temperature maintained at 80 + 2.00 C (176 + 3.60 F) for
24 hours. The specimens were then carefully removed from the water one at a time and
their surfaces were dried using a towel. Immediately the length of the mortar bar was
measured using a length comparator. This was recorded as the “zero reading”. The mortar
bars were transferred into a container with 1N NaOH solution. Care was taken such that
the specimens were placed on supports, fully immersed and the container sealed
completely. These containers were then returned into the convection oven with
29
temperature maintained at 80 + 2.00 C (176 + 3.60 F). Subsequent readings were taken at
3, 7, 11 and 14 days (from zero day).
Interpretation of test results: Expansion limits for accelerated test method are as follows:
If the aggregates show expansion of
Less than 0.10% - innocuous
Between 0.10% to 0.20% - inconclusive
Greater than 0.20% - deleterious
When excessive expansion occurs, it is strongly recommended that the
supplementary information be developed to confirm that the expansion is actually due to
alkali silica reactivity. Sources of such supplementary information include (1)
petrographic examination of the aggregate (ASTM C295) to determine if known reactive
constituents are present, and (2) examination of the specimens after tests to identify the
products of alkali-silica reactivity (ASTM C 856).
2.4.3.6 Drying Shrinkage of Concrete (ASTM C 157)
This test was done in accordance with ASTM C 157, which is a standard test
method for Length change of hardened concrete.
Scope This test method covers determination of the length changes of hardened
hydraulic-cement mortar and concrete due to causes other than externally applied forces
and temperature changes. The term "length change," as used here, is defined as an
increase or decrease in a linear dimension of a test specimen, which has been caused to
change by any factor other than externally, applied forces and temperature changes.
Test Specimens Drying shrinkage deformations were measured on 76 x 76 x 286 mm (3 inch
square section and 11.5 inch long) prisms. Three specimens were cast in mild steel molds
30
for each mix and consolidated on a table vibrator. Each specimen was cast with two
stainless steel inserts called as gauge studs to facilitate shrinkage measurements.
Curing and Storing The specimens were de-molded after 24 hrs and transferred immediately to the
curing tank filled with lime-saturated water at room temperature. The specimens were
water cured up to an age of 28 days, and then stored in a temperature and humidity
controlled room at a temperature of 21+30 C (70+50 F) and a relative humidity of 50
percent.
Procedure Upon removal of the specimens from the molds, the specimens were placed in
lime-saturated water. After 30 minutes the specimens were removed from water one at a
time, wiped with a damp cloth, and immediately a comparator reading was taken. This
reading is called as the initial comparator reading. Immediately after this the specimens
were placed into the lime-saturated water for a period of 28 days. After 28 days of curing
period, readings were taken at every 4 hrs for the first day, every 8 hrs for the second and
third day and every day for the first week. Further readings were taken after every week
for the first month and up to an age of 60 days after the curing period.
Shrinkage measurements were obtained using a dial gage comparator with
readings measured to an accuracy of 0.0013 mm (0.00005 in.). An invar bar was used for
calibration during testing.
2.4.3.7 Creep of Concrete in Compression (ASTM C 512)
Scope This test method covers the determination of the creep of molded concrete
cylinders subjected to sustained longitudinal compressive load. This test method is
limited to concrete in which the maximum aggregate size does not exceed 50 mm (2 in.).
Test Specimens
The specimens used in this test were vertically cast concrete cylinders. Cylinders
were cast in accordance with ASTM C 192. The dimension of the cylinder was 150 mm x
300 mm (6” in diameter and 12” length). Six cylinders were cast for every mix.
31
Curing and Storage After removing from the molds the specimens were stored in a moist condition
until the age of 7 days. A moist condition is that in which free water is maintained on the
surfaces of the specimens at all times. After the completion of moist curing, the
specimens were stored at a temperature of 21+30 C (70+ 50 F) until the completion of the
test.
Procedure Age at loading – The samples were loaded at an age of 28 days to compare the
creep potential of different concretes.
Immediately before loading the creep specimens, the compressive strength of the
concrete was determined in accordance with Test Method ASTM C39. The specimens
were loaded at an intensity of not more than 40% of the compressive strength at the age
of loading.
Prior to loading the specimens, strain readings were recorded by means of a multi-
position digital strain gage for all the specimens i.e., both creep specimens (specimens
subjected to sustained load) and shrinkage specimens. Gage points were fixed at 254 mm
(10in.). apart using a punch bar. The creep specimens were placed in a spring-system-
loading frame and subjected to a sustained load of 9900 kgs (22,000 pounds). The
sustained load was checked at frequent intervals by a calibrated pressure gage and was
adjusted by a hydraulic jack. Strain readings for creep specimens were recorded
immediately after loading. Readings were taken at intervals of 4 hrs for the first day, 8
hrs for the second and third day, every day for the first week and every week for the first
month. The final reading was taken at the end of 60 days.
Specimen calculations Loaded specimens: -
Readings taken immediately before loading: Face A-0.2662 Average: = 0.2660
Face B-0.2658
First reading immediately after loading: Face A-0.2678 Average: = 0.2677
Face B-0.2676
32
After 144 hrs (6 days) of loading: Face A-0.2720 Average: = 0.2719
Face B-0.2718
Initial unit elastic strain = (0.2677 – 0.2660) / 10 = 0.00017 = 170 x 10-6 Total unit strain after 144 hrs (6 days) of loading = (0.2719 – 0.2660)/10
= 0.00059 = 590 x 10-6
Control specimens (Shrinkage): -
Readings were taken for control specimens simultaneously with the loaded specimen
readings: Face A-0.2692 Average: = 0.2684
Face B-0.2676
After 144 hrs (6 days): Face A-0.2700 Average: = 0.2692
Face B-0.2685
Unit shrinkage strain after 144 hrs (6 days) = (0.2692-0.2684) / 10
= 0.00008 = 85 x 10-6 After 144 hrs (6 days):
Unit creep strain = Total unit strain - Unit shrinkage strain - Initial unit elastic strain
= (590 - 85 - 170) x 10-6 = 335 x 10-6 in./in.
Unit specific creep = Unit creep strain / Stress applied
= 335 x 10-6 / 800 = 0.42 x 10-6 in./in./psi
Creep rate
The creep rate [F(K)] at any age is found by using the following equation, as per ASTM
C 512
∈ = 1/E + F(K)*ln(t+1)
Where ∈ = Total unit strain at any age,
E = Instantaneous elastic modulus, psi (or KPa),
F(K) = Creep rate,
t = time after loading, days.
For example:
After 24 hrs (1 day) of loading:
∈ = 438 x 10-6
33
E = 4.86 x 106 psi.
t = 1 day
F(K) = (∈ - 1/E) / ln (t+1)
= (438 x 10-6 – 1 / 4.86 x 106) / ln (2) = 632 x 10-6
After 144 hrs (6 days) of loading:
∈ = 627 x 10-6
E = 4.86 x 106 psi.
t = 6 days
F(K) = (∈ - 1/E) / ln (t+1)
= (627 x 10-6 – 1 / 4.86 x 106) / ln (7)
= 322 x 10-6
Creep recovery
Initial unit elastic strain = 170 x 10-6 Total unit strain after 1440 hrs (60 days): = 897 x 10-6
Total unit strain immediately after unloading (60th day): = 773 x 10-6
Initial unit elastic recovery strain: = (897- 773) x 10-6 = 124 x 10-6
% Unit elastic recovery = (124 x 10-6 / 170 x 10-6) x 100 = 73 %
Unit shrinkage strain after 1440 hrs (60 days): = 288 x 10-6
Unit creep strain immediately after unloading:
= Total unit strain – Unit shrinkage strain – Initial unit elastic strain
= (773 – 288 – 170) x 10-6
= 315 x 10-6
Total unit strain after 1680 hrs (70 days): = 745 x 10-6
Total unit shrinkage strain after 1680 hrs (70 days): = 313 x 10-6
Unit creep recovery strain after 10 days of unloading (70th day-60th day):
= Total unit strain – Unit shrinkage strain – Initial unit elastic strain
= (745 – 313 - 170) x 10-6
= 262 x 10-6
Unit creep recovery for 10 days: = 315 x 10-6 – 262 x 10-6 = 53 x 10-6
% Unit creep recovery: = (53 x 10-6 / 315 x 10-6) x 100 = 17 %
34
2.4.3.8 Resistance to Rapid Freezing and Thawing of Concrete
(ASTM C 666)
Scope This test method (ASTM C 666) covers the determination of the resistance of
concrete specimens to repeated cycles of freezing and thawing in the laboratory by
Procedure A, Rapid Freezing and Thawing in Water.
Test Specimens The specimens used for this test were four 76.2 x 76.2 x 285.7 mm (3 x 3 x 11.25
in.) prisms and two 101.6 x 101.6 x 355.6 mm (4 x 4 x 14 in.) prisms. Of the four 76.2 x
76.2 x 285.7 mm (3 x 3 x 11.25in.) specimens two were placed in the freeze thaw
apparatus, remaining two were stored in the moist room and the two 101.6 x 101.6 x
355.6 mm (4 x 4 x 14 in.) specimens were tested for modulus of rupture after 14 days.
Curing and Storage All the six specimens were cured in moist room for 14 days. After 14 days two
specimens were placed in the freeze thaw apparatus, two specimens were placed in the
moist room till the completion of 300 cycles.
Procedure The procedure followed was procedure A (rapid freezing and thawing in water).
Immediately after the completion of specified curing period two specimens were tested
for modulus of rupture ASTM C 78. The average length and cross sectional dimensions
were recorded. Initial comparator readings for the four specimens were determined using
the length comparator gage. Time required for an ultrasonic wave to pass through the
length of the specimen was recorded as pulse time (� sec). After the initial readings, two
specimens were subjected to freezing and thawing in the freeze thaw chamber and the
other two specimens in the moist curing room till 300 cycles. After every 30 cycles the
length comparator reading and the pulse time and the weight change were recorded till
the completion of 300 cycles. Based on the pulse time the pulse velocity and the
durability factor were calculated for all the specimens.
35
Formulae used for Calculations Pulse Velocity, V
V = (E (1- μ) / ρ (1 + μ) (1- 2 μ)) 1/2
E = Dynamic modulus of elasticity,
μ = Poisson’s ratio,
ρ = Density.
Dynamic E= CMn2
M = mass of specimen, Kg,
n = fundamental transverse frequency, Hz
C = 1.6067 (L3T/bt3), N.s2(Kg.m2) for a prism,
L = length of specimen, m
t, b = dimensions of cross section of prism, m, t being in the direction which it is driven,
T = a correction factor which depends on the ratio of the radius of gyration, K (the radius
of gyration for a prism is t/3.464) to the length of the specimen, L, and on Poissons ratio.
Durability Factor = PN/M
Where:
DF = durability factor of the test specimen
P = relative dynamic modulus of elasticity at N cycles %
N = number of cycles at which P reaches the specified minimum value for discontinuing
the test or the specified number of cycles at which the exposure is to be terminated,
whichever is less, and
M = specified number of cycles at which the exposure is to be terminated.
Following the completion of 300 cycles of Freeze Thaw, the beam specimens were
broken using the flexural testing machine. The broken beams were then immersed in
water for 30 minutes followed by being wiped with towels to remove any free water on
the surface and then weighed. They were placed in an oven at 105o + 5o C (221 + 9o F)
for 48 hours. They were then weighed and the absorption coefficient was found by the
following formula.
Saturated surface dry absorption coefficient
= Saturated Weight – Oven dry Weight x 100
Oven dry Weight
36
2.4.3.9 Concrete Plastic Shrinkage Reduction Potential 2.4.3.9.1 Test Method
Tests were conducted using 51mm(2 in.) thick slabs that were 1m(3 ft) long and
0.6m(2 ft) wide. The slabs were restrained around the perimeter using wire meshes.
Immediately after casting, the slabs were placed on a flat surface and subjected to a
wind velocity of 22 km/h, using high-velocity fans. The cracks started to develop in
about 1 hr after casting. The mechanism for the development of cracks is a complex
process. Conceptually, it can be assumed that the concrete shrinks as it hardens and
develops cracks when restrained from free movement. The primary factors are amount
of shrinkage, type of restraint, and the tensile strength of the concrete during the
hardening process. In most cases, the cracking would be complete in about 6 to 8 hrs.
The crack widths and lengths were measured after 24 hrs. The longer duration was
chosen to make sure that all the cracks had developed and stabilized. The crack width
was measured accurately at a number of locations along the length of the crack. The
length of the crack was measured for each crack and multiplied by the average width.
Thus the total crack area for a given slab is calculated.
2.4.3.9.2 Mix Proportions:
The major factors that will influence the formation of plastic shrinkage cracks are
the cement content, the water to cement ratio, the maximum size of the coarse
aggregates, the wind velocity, the humidity and the ambient temperature. The plastic
shrinkage will be higher, the higher the cement content, the higher the water-content,
higher the ambient temperature, higher the wind velocity, lower the humidity and lower
the maximum size of the aggregates. The testing conditions, such as the ambient
temperature, the humidity, and the wind velocity (22 km/h) were kept constant for each
batch. Tests are conducted for all the three mixes, control concrete, optimized without
fly ash and optimized with fly ash
The basic mixture proportions for (1 cubic yard) for all the mixes used are as follows:
37
Control Optimum Optimum ( pcy) (without flyash) (pcy)(with flyash) (pcy)
Cement (Type I/II) 655 590 472**Fly ash 1481" Max Size Coarse Aggregate 17251.5” Max size Coarse Aggregate (27.5% of Total Aggregate, 2825 pcy) 777 777¾” Max size Coarse Aggregate (37.5% of Total Aggregate, 2825 pcy) 1060 1060Fine Aggregate (Medium Sand) (35% of Total Aggregate, 2825 pcy) 1100 989 989Water 275 248 222Water/cement ratio 0.42 0.42 0.47Water/(cement + fly ash) ratio 0.36
2.4.3.10 Temperature monitoring in Concrete using Thermochron I-Button
Scope:
Thermochron I-Button can be used as an effective device to monitor the
temperature variation in concrete.
I-Button Device:
The Thermochron I-Button is the product of Dallas Semiconductor corp. The first
product in the I-Button line of Temperature Sensors is the DS1920. The DS1920 is a
digital thermometer that gives you the ability to read the current temperature of the
environment in which it is placed or mounted. With a simple touch of the DS1920, with a
1-Wire probe, it is possible to read the current temperature from -55°C to 100°C. The I-
Button's embedded computer chip integrates a 1-Wire transmitter/receiver, a globally
unique address, a thermometer, a clock/calendar, a thermal history log, and 512 bytes of
additional memory to store user data, such as a shipping manifest. The reusable I-Button
logs data for more than 10 years or up to 1 million temperature measurements.
Thermochrons store data in two different ways that serve different application needs.
First, it can wake up to take 2048 time- and date-stamped temperature readings at equal
intervals between 1 and 255 minutes, then store the data in a time-temperature log format.
Second, thermochrons also simultaneously store each temperature sample in a histogram.
The histogram memory consists of 56 bins in 2-degree increments; each bin holds 65,500
temperature readings for up to 10 years.
In order to record the temperature with the I-Button we need the following kit.
38
• DS1921L-F51 Thermochron iButton • DS9093F iButton Keyring Fob Attachment • DS907U-009 9-pin Universal 1-Wire COM Port Adapter • DS1402D-DR8 Blue Dot Receptor with RJ-11 Connector • Instruction Sheet
Programming of the I-Button:
In order to record the temperature in the concrete before placing in the concrete I-
button should be programmed according to the requirement. In our investigation we have
programmed it in such a way that it records temperature at every five minutes interval so
that it can record up to a period of 7 days, as the capacity of the I-Button is approximately
2048 readings. The starting of mission in I-button for recording the temperature includes
the following steps.
1. Setting the clock.
2. Setting the time alarm.
3. Setting the sample rate.
4. Setting the temperature alarm.
5. Setting the mission start delay (time to start).
6. Checking when mission will end;
7. Selecting data rollover or not.
8. Finish.
Placing I-Button in Concrete:
After programming the I-button was placed in a concrete cylinder (4”x8”) to
record the temperature. The cylinder was compacted on a mechanical vibrator. I-button
was placed such that the whole device was surrounded by concrete so that it records only
the temperature of the concrete. The cylinder was filled up to half the depth and
compacted first and then the I-button was placed taking care that it is in the center of the
cylinder. Then the cylinder was compacted again by filling the remaining depth with
concrete.
Retrieving Data from I-Button:
After 24 hours the cylinder was demolded and kept in the moist curing room.
Cylinder was tested for compressive strength at the age of 7 days. After the cylinder had
39
failed in compression, I-button was taken out of the cylinder by breaking the cylinder
taking care not to damage the I-button. Data was transferred to the computer using
DS907U-009 9-pin Universal 1-Wire COM Port Adapter and DS9093F I-button Keyring
Fob Attachment, DS1402D-DR8 Blue Dot Receptor with RJ-11 Connector. Data
obtained from the I-button was in text format, which was delimited into excel file and
analyzed.
Mix Designation:
All the mixes were designated with the number of mix and the name of the mix as
1CLB for Control Limestone Bridge deck concrete mix –1. All the mix designations and
descriptions are given in Table 4.13.
2.5 Test Specimens The specimens cast for each mix are as follows:
2.5.1 Determination of Initial and Final Setting Time (ASTM C403)
Cement mortar in a mold of size 762 x 152.4 x 152.4 mm (30 x 6 x 6 inches)
2.5.2 Strength Development
Twenty one – 100 mm x 200 mm (4 in. x 8 in.) cylinders – For Compressive
Strength and Static Modulus Tests.
2.5.3 Sulfate Attack on Concrete
• Six 285.7 x 25.4 x 25.4 mm (11.25 x 1 x 1 in.) mortar bars and
• Twenty-one 50.8 mm (2 in.) cubes of concrete.
2.5.4 Resistance to Rapid Freezing and Thawing of Concrete
• Four 285.7 x 76.2 x 76.2 mm (11.25 x 3 x 3 in.) prisms for freeze thaw testing
and
• Two 355.6 x 101.6 x 101.6 mm (14 x 4 x 4 in.) prisms for flexure testing.
2.5.5 Scaling Resistance of Concrete Surfaces Exposed to Deicing Chemicals
• Two 355.6 x 152.4 x 152.4 mm (14 x 6 x 6 in.) concrete beams.
40
2.5.6 Alkali Aggregate Reactivity
• Four prisms, size 285 x 25.4 x 25.4 mm (11.25 x 1 x 1 inches) having a 250 mm
(10 in) gage length were made for AAR testing.
2.5.7 Drying Shrinkage of Concrete
• Three specimens 286 x 76 x 76 mm (3-in.-square section and 11.5-in.long) prisms
were made from the concrete.
2.5.8 Creep of Concrete in Compression
• Six cylinders, 150 mm x 300 mm (6” in diameter and 12” length).
41
CHAPTER 3.0
TASK DESCRIPTION
3.1 Task 1- Review and summarize literature relevant to mix designs using a well
graded aggregate to minimize drying shrinkage in structural concrete and identify
laboratory test procedures to determine concrete’s tendency for shrinkage cracking.
3.1.1 Gradation of Aggregates:
The particle size distribution of the aggregates is called gradation. To obtain the
gradation curve for aggregate, sieve analysis has to be conducted in accordance with
ASTM C136. The gradations of aggregates are classified into three types, well graded,
gap-graded, and uniformly graded, which are illustrated in Figure 3.1 [9].
Figure 3.1: Gradation of Aggregate [9]
Continuous
Gap
Uniform
100%
0%
Increasing particle size/sieve
Increasing cumulative percentage passing
In uniformly graded aggregate, only a few sizes dominate the bulk material and the
aggregates are not effectively packed. The result is porous concrete requiring more
cement paste. Gap graded aggregate is a kind of grading which lacks one or more
intermediate sizes. This grading can make good concrete when the required workability is
relatively low. When it is to be used in high workability mixes, segregation may become
42
a problem. It would require higher amount of fines, would require more water, and would
increase susceptibility to shrinkage. Well-graded aggregates are desirable for making
concrete, as the space between larger particles is effectively filled by smaller particles to
produce a well-packed structure, requiring lesser amount of cement paste. This gradation
would reduce the need for excess water still maintains adequate workability. Achieving a
better gradation may require the use of three or more different aggregate sizes. An
optimized gradation is defined as one in which practical and economic constraints are
combined with attempts to obtain and use a mix of aggregate particle sizes that will lead
to improved workability, durability, and strength [9, 10].
Uniformly Graded Well GradedGap Graded
Figure 3.2: Gradation of Aggregates [10]
An optimum graded aggregate is the key to the mixture performance and
constructability, and would provide the workability needed for placement and finishing
with the lowest water to cement ratio. The 1923 ASTM C33 standard included
requirements that contributed to well-graded mixtures. The 1986 ASTM C33 standard
contributes to near gap grading with its inherent placement problems. The major
difference in these two standards is in the sand gradation. The 1923 standard required that
the sand be “predominately coarse particles” and have 85 percent passing the No.4 (4.75
mm) sieve. Today’s sands are finer with 95 to 100 percent passing the No.4 (4.75 mm)
sieve [4].
Abrams proposed in 1918 the first and foremost theory that emphasized the need
to minimize water content in the mix. He developed a proportioning method based upon
his combined aggregate fineness modulus formula and that led to the rational results for
43
the development of what is known as his “Water – Cement Ratio Theory” [2]. Abrams
three-step mixture proportioning process was modified to address
1. Size and grading of the fine and coarse aggregates.
2. Consistency for workability of concrete.
3. The quantity of cement.
The objective is to reduce the total water. ASTM C33-23 aggregate grading requirements
required finer coarse aggregate and coarser fine aggregate to assure that the combined
aggregate in concrete mixture was well graded. That condition seldom exists today. The
goal is to select a blend of aggregates to reduce the need for water and cementitious
materials. Once the aggregates are optimized with low paste content, the mixture will
provide the mobility needed for placement and consolidation without segregation [2].
Concrete mixture optimization involves the adaptation of available resources to
meet varying engineering criteria, construction operations, and economic needs.
Optimization is often informally taken into consideration before and during construction
on a non-quantitative basis by “adding half a bag of cement,” “cutting the rock 100
pounds and replacing it with sand,” or adding a high-range water reducer. When mixtures
are optimized on a quantitative basis, construction productivity will be improved,
durability increased and both materials and construction costs reduced. Current ASTM
and similar aggregate grading limits do not contribute to mixture optimization, as such
standards do not address gradations of blends. Aggregates that do not meet ASTM C33
gradation requirements, but are otherwise acceptable under a quality standard, can be
used with equal ease to produce high quality concrete with well-graded composite [11].
According to Shilstone, there are three principal factors for optimization: the
relationship between coarseness of the two larger aggregates and the fine one, the total
amount of mortar, and the aggregate particle distribution. The amount of mortar needed
increases with the greater contrast in aggregate size. Increased mortar means increased
sand, cement, and water. He contends that mortar is also the most vulnerable element in
the mix. Gap-graded mixes contain a greater amount of coarse particles, which also has
an adverse effect on workability and finishability. He also says, “If we know the product
we want, we can find the ways to fill voids with inert rock and reduce mortar paste”. If
we can reduce mortar paste, we will get better durability. The larger the size of aggregate
44
is used, the lesser the mortar will be required to coat the surface, fill the voids and
produce a workable concrete. The largest maximum size should be used wherever
practical. Fine aggregate has the most surface area to be coated by paste and, as such, has
the most significant effect on water demand. No more fine aggregates than are absolutely
necessary for workability and placeability should be used. Workability relates to the ease
with which concrete can be placed. Finishability relates to the ease and quality by which
both formed and unformed finishes are produced [12, 13].
The role of cement paste is to fill the voids between the aggregates, to give a
certain workability (like the grease in a ball bearing) and to bind the aggregates together
when the paste hardens. A reduction in the cement paste (and the concrete mix price) is
thus mainly possible through a reduction of the void volume between the aggregates. To
achieve this, a better packing of the aggregate mix is required [14]. The workability of
concrete is affected both by the proportions and by the individual properties of the
constituents. For given materials and specific volume ratios of cement and water, the
workability of the concrete varies as the relative amounts of coarse and fine aggregates.
Several investigators have noted that the workability achieves a maximum value when
the aggregates are combined in their “optimum” proportions [15].
Plastic shrinkage cracks occur during the first few hours after casting concrete
while the material is still in a semi-fluid or plastic state. The study of plastic shrinkage
cracking is complicated because the material properties that determine whether such
cracks will form, are time-dependent and change rapidly during the first few hours in the
life of the concrete. The shrinkage that is the root cause of these cracks is induced by the
loss of water. It is commonly held that plastic shrinkage cracking develops when the rate
of evaporation exceeds the rate at which bleed water is furnished to the surface and that
there is a high probability of the formation of plastic shrinkage cracks when the rate of
evaporation from the surface of the concrete is in excess of 0.2 lb of water/ft2/ hr. It has
been observed that for given evaporative conditions, mixes with higher paste content
have a higher tendency to crack. Plastic shrinkage cracks may impair the serviceability,
durability, or esthetics of a concrete structure, and are therefore of economic significance
in the concrete construction industry [16]. Plastic shrinkage and drying shrinkage can
cause transverse cracks early in the life of pavements. These surface cracks can
45
deteriorate over time due to traffic loads and climatic variations, leading to more severe
cracks [17].
Unlike normal concrete, High Performance Concrete (HPC) behaves as a true
composite material with an efficient transfer of stresses between mortar and coarse
aggregate even at relatively low loads, thereby demonstrating the early involvement of
coarse aggregate in the mechanical behavior of HPC [18].
Applications to Bridges
Each of the enhancements for HPC can be explained under the foregoing, long proven
basic concrete technology principles.
Ease of Placement: This is important because it recognizes that the design must be a part
of the constructed solution. Most of the concrete placed in concrete bridges is placed by
pump. When there are pumping problems, high-range water reducers are added to reduce
construction delays and wear on pumping lines. It is often more effective to improve the
grading of the combined aggregate to reduce the need for water and paste.
Compaction without segregation: The problem of segregation is wide spread and is
rarely challenged. Though most specifications cite the requirement that concrete should
not be allowed to segregate. The effects of segregation can be most easily observed on
highways, streets and bridge decks when spalling, scaling and cracking are present in
limited areas while the rest of the concrete is sound. Often these problems are reported as
freeze thaw damage.
Weymouth researched the effects of aggregate particle distribution on mixture
performance and described what he termed “particle interference” leading to mixture
segregation. Powers expanded on Weymouth’s work and illustrated his model for particle
interference on segregation in terms of dry mixtures of two particle sizes to illustrate the
conditions:
a. If the average clear distance between the larger particles is considerably greater
than the diameter of smaller particles, the particles would not segregate when
mixed.
b. If the average distance between the larger particles is just equal to the diameter of
smaller particles, the particles would not segregate when mixed.
46
c. If the average clearance between the larger particles is less than the diameter of
smaller particles, the particles would segregate when mixed [2].
Shilstone using the coarseness factor chart (Figure 3.3) described the above
problem in a different manner. The X- axis is the percent of the combined aggregate
retained on the No. 8 sieve that is also retained on the 3/8 inch sieve. The Y- axis
represents the percent of the combined aggregate passing No. 8 sieve.
Figure 3.3: Modified Coarseness Factor Chart [2]
The Zones as used characterize the potential performance of different mixtures.
Zone I mixtures have a high tendency to segregate. Zone II mixtures have a good
relationship between the two size groupings for 1 ½ inch to ½ inch nominal maximum
size. Zone III shows the same relationship for ½ inch and finer nominal maximum
aggregate size mixtures. Zone IV depicts oversanded mixtures that tend to produce
variable strength and experience high plastic cracking and drying shrinkage. These
segregate under vibration causing the hardened concrete to scale and spall, and have poor
durability. Zone V, and all below the trend bar, is rocky. The zones are field experience
based [2].
47
There are three primary sources of segregation. The first two are mix related and
third is engineering design related. The first can be observed during construction. If the
mixture is not cohesive, segregation will occur during placement and be observed as the
mix comes off the truck chute, conveyer or pump line. The coarse aggregate separates
from the mortar. Once a mixture is segregated, it cannot be recombined to be in the same
state as in the mixer.
The second source of segregation occurs during vibration of an over mortared mixture.
Cramer, et al compared two mixtures, one was traditional Wisconsin DOT mixture that
was deficient in particles between 3/8 inch and No. 16 sieves, and the other was better
graded. After three minutes of vibration, the majority of coarse particles were on the
bottom and fines were on top. There was minimal segregation for the better graded
mixture.
Poor constructability is the cause of the third basis for segregation when reinforcing steel
design prevents proper placement of concrete. The mixture segregates as it bounces over
the steel.
Early Age Strength: This should be performance objective of last resort as it may
contribute to many problems.
Long-term mechanical properties: Among the properties to be considered are: modulus
of elasticity, creep, shrinkage, tensile strength, and thermal characteristics. High modulus
of elasticity, especially at an early age can prevent creep that occurs in response to
thermal or drying shrinkage. The concrete can become rigid too fast so that it cannot
respond to the volume changes such as drying or thermal. Therefore it cracks. High
modulus of elasticity at an early age can be obtained by using high cementitious materials
content and low water-cementitious materials ratio.
Permeability and Density: These two factors go hand-in-hand, as they appear to be the
primary qualities that affect long-term serviceability. Water and water-borne deleterious
materials such as salts and sulfates contribute to, many problems. When water penetration
is reduced, durability is improved. When gravel or cubically crushed coarse and
intermediate particles along with natural sand are used, mixtures with coarseness factor
of 60 and a workability factor of approximately 35 have produced outstanding results.
48
They require less water and allow a reduction in paste thereby contributing to reduced
shrinkage.
Heat of Hydration: The reaction of Portland cement and water is an exothermic reaction
affecting the temperature of the concrete during the early curing. The lower the concrete
temperature during hydration, the better the concrete. Optimizing the combined aggregate
gradation to reduce the need for water and cement can reduce the heat of hydration.
Toughness: The principle toughness factors are resistance to abrasion and erosion.
Bridge deck and pier concrete in flowing water must be tough for different reasons. The
concrete in deck must withstand the forces of abrasion while concrete in water must resist
erosion. A gap graded mix will erode because the mortar is less resistant to erosion than a
good natural aggregate.
Volume Stability: Cracking in concrete has the most ominous effect on its performance.
It is the problem in almost all modern concrete. Krauss and Rogalla conducted an
extensive study of transverse cracking in bridge decks. The most significant factors
affecting the transverse cracking are: cement content, creep, elastic modulus, concrete
temperature during placement, heat generated during hydration, drying shrinkage, and
water content. Aggregate type, mineral additions, admixtures, and cement type also
influence cracking. Some of the general recommendations to reduce cracking include: 1)
low amounts of cement, 2) low shrinkage aggregate, 3) low water-cement ratio and 4)air
entrainment.
Long life in severe environments: All of the foregoing concerns lead to long life in
some of the worst environments in which concrete exists [2].
According to Jim Mikulenic of Central Paving, “In fast-track contracts,
optimization is immeasurably powerful”. Jim Thompson of Ash Grove Cement in Kansas
City, KS, acknowledges the fact that, “A high water requirement is needed because of
gap-grading in the C33 specification”. “By adding intermediate aggregates, the water
content was reduced by five gallons per yard of concrete maintaining the same slump.
49
There was an increase in the strength by 1000 psi and it also improved the durability”
[12].
By using shilstone’s method and a third aggregate to achieve a more optimal
particle size distribution, the Colorado Department of Transportation reported a 5 percent
reduction in water demand and a 10 percent increase in strength on a bridge deck project
[12].
Investigations carried for paving in Wisconsin showed that the use of optimized
total aggregate gradation in pavement resulted in an increase in compressive strength of
10 to 20 percent, reduced water demand by up to 15 percent to achieve comparable
slump, air contents achieved with 20 to 30 percent reductions in air entraining agent. The
optimized mixes in field required an average of 15 percent less water compared with the
near gap-graded mixes in achieving comparable slumps. The same water reduction was
not realized in laboratory mixes. In addition, 30 percent less air-entraining agent was
needed to entrain the same amount of air in the field optimized mix. The results obtained
for the bridge deck investigation were not as conclusive as in the pavement study. In the
field and laboratory, the slightly optimized mixes again required less water than the near
gap-graded mixes to achieve similar slump, but these water reductions were not as large
as in the pavement study and ranged from 1 to 7 percent [19].
3.1.2 Methods for Optimizing Aggregate Gradation:
1. 0.45 Power Chart Method
2. Shilstone Method
3. USAF Constructability Chart
4. 8-18 Method
3.1.2.1 0.45 Power Chart Method
One common way of characterizing aggregate gradation is by making a gradation
plot on a 0.45 power chart, which also contains the maximum density line. Superpave
adopted the 0.45 power chart for graphical display of gradation as currently
recommended by FHWA. No evidence of either published or unpublished data was
50
discovered which would support the adoption of any value other than 0.45. Some reports
have circulated in the industry that plotting the sieve opening raised to the 0.45 power
may not be universally applicable for all aggregates. Specifically, it is claimed that the
power should be larger, 0.50 or 0.60 for some aggregates, particularly crushed
aggregates. SHRP investigated the history of the 0.45 power chart before adoption. The
0.45 power chart as used today is based on the work of Nijboer [20] from Netherlands
and from Goode and Lufsey of the Bureau of Public Roads [21]. Nijboer evaluated the
packing of both quarried aggregates and uncrushed gravel. He found that the densest
configuration occurred for a straight line gradation plotted on a 0.45 power chart. Goode
and Lufsey validated the work of Nijboer for aggregates in the United States and further
investigated the packing of various typical gradations used in United States [22].
Figure 3.4: 0.45 Power Chart for 1 inch Aggregate
3.1.2.1.1 Maximum Density Line
SHRP investigated the history of defining maximum density lines and evaluated
the current status of maximum density lines in the industry today. The work of Goode
and Lufsey validated the 0.45 power chart and investigated one specific maximum
density line for contrived typical gradations. The method proposed by Goode and Lufsey
in their AAPT paper for determining where to draw the maximum density line is
cumbersome and is not used by any agencies today. Concurrent with SHRP, the FHWA
formed an expert task group on volumetric properties of asphalt mixes. The group
51
investigated two methods of drawing maximum density lines. One method draws a line
from the percent passing 0.075 mm sieve to the first sieve passing 100%. The other
method contained in the Asphalt Institute publications requires the line to be drawn from
the origin to the maximum sieve size. Background and research supporting the Asphalt
Institute method is published in ASTM Special Technical Publication No. 1147. Using a
modified Delphi process, consensus was reached to draw a maximum density line
According to the method proposed by the Asphalt Institute. Superpave classifies
gradations based on their nominal aggregate size, defined as “one size larger than the first
size to retain more than 10% by weight of aggregate”. The maximum aggregate size is
defined as, “one sieve size larger than the nominal aggregate size” [22].
A well-graded aggregate combination will follow the maximum density line to the
1.18 mm (No. 16) sieve. A slight deviation below the maximum density line at the 1.18
mm (No.16) sieve will occur to account for the effect of the fines provided by the
cementitious materials [5].
3.1.2.1.2 Validation of 0.45 Power Chart in obtaining the Optimized Aggregate
Gradation for Improving the Strength Aspects of High Performance Concrete.
Historically, the 0.45 power chart has been used to develop uniform gradations for
asphalt mix designs; however it has now been widely used to develop uniform gradations
for portland cement concrete mix designs. Some reports have circulated in the industry
that plotting the sieve opening raised to the 0.45 power may not be universally applicable
for all aggregates. In this project the validity of 0.45 power chart has been evaluated
using quartzite aggregates. Aggregates of different sizes and gradations were blended to
fit exactly the gradations of curves raised to 0.35, 0.40, 0.45, 0.50 and 0.55. Five mixes,
which incorporated the aggregate gradations of the five power curves, were made and
tested for compressive strength and flexural strength. A control mix was also made whose
aggregate gradations did not match the straight-line gradations of the 0.45 power curve.
This was achieved by using a single size aggregate and sand. The water-cement ratio and
the cement content were kept constant for all the six mixes. The results showed that the
52
mix incorporating the 0.45 power chart gradations gave the highest strength when
compared to other power charts and the control concrete. Thus the 0.45 power curve can
be adopted with confidence to obtain the densest packing of aggregates and it may be
universally applicable for all aggregates. A detailed report of this investigation with the
experimental results and analysis is given in Appendix K.
3.1.2.2 Shilstone Method
There are three principal factors upon which mixture proportions can be
optimized for a given need with a given combination of aggregate characteristics:
• The relationship between the coarseness of two larger aggregate fractions and the
fine fraction.
• Total amount of mortar.
• Aggregate particle distribution.
It is difficult to picture the relationship of particles and their behavior during concrete
mixing, delivery and placement. Figure 3.5 represents the profile of a concrete composite
with a good distribution of large and smaller particles, and mortar to coat all surfaces.
Figure 3.6 represents a condition where there are no intermediate particles, as a result the
mortar requirement is increased. Increased mortar means increased sand cement and
water. Such increases do not lead to the casting of high quality concrete. The concrete
represented by Figure 3.5 is a well-graded mixture and Figure 3.6 is a gap-graded
mixture. Normally, gap-graded or near gap-graded mixtures contain a greater amount of
coarse particles than shown in the Figures, but also has an adverse effect upon
pumpability and finishability.
Figure 3.5: Well-graded mixture [11] Figure 3.6: Gap-graded mixture [11]
53
Shilstone developed a grading chart showing the aggregate gradations and the
combined gradations for the coarsest, finest, and optimum mixtures. The chart used is
divided into three segments identified as Q, I, W. This was based on comments by other
mix researchers about the amount and function of the “intermediate aggregate” particles.
Figure 3.7: Concrete Aggregate Grading Chart [11]
Intermediate aggregate is defined as that with particles passing the 3/8 inch (9.5
mm) sieve but retained on the No. 8 sieve (2.36 mm). The letter identifications were
based on:
Q – The plus 3/8 inch (9.5 mm) sieve particles are the high quality, inert filler sizes.
Generally, the more the better because they reduce the need for mortar that shrinks and
cracks.
I – The minus 3/8 inch (9.5 mm), plus No.8 (2.36 mm) sieve particles are the
intermediate particles that fill major voids and aid in mix mobility, or if elongated and
sharp, interference particles that contribute to mixture harshness.
W – The minus No.8 (2.36 mm) sieve particles give the mixture workability, functioning
as ball bearings in machinery. The character and amount of the mixture proportion
largely determines workability at a given consistency.
54
It was observed from studies and literature that a simple theory could be stated:
“The amount of fine sand required to produce an optimum mixture is a function of the
relationship between the two larger aggregate fractions”. Later the following was added:
“The amount of fine sand needed to optimize a mixture is a function of the amount of
cementitious materials in the mixture”. The particle distribution of any mixture can be
calculated and the results can be plotted on the coarseness factor chart.
The amount of the fine aggregate in a mixture must be in balance with the needs
of the larger, inert particles. If there is too much sand; the mixture is “sticky”, has a high
water demand, requires more cementitious materials to produce a given strength,
increases pump pressures, and creates finishing and crazing problems. If there is not
enough sand, the mixture is “bony” and creates a different set of placing and finishing
problems [11].
3.1.2.2.1 Mortar Factor
It is an extension of coarseness factor chart. The mortar consists of fine sand
(minus No. 8 [2.36 mm] sieve) and the paste. With reasonably sound aggregates properly
distributed, it is the fraction of the mixture that has a major effect upon the engineer’s
interest in strength, drying shrinkage, durability and creep. It is also the segment that
provides the contractor’s need for workability, pumpability, placeability and finishability.
A mixture that is optimized for strength and shrinkage but cannot be properly placed and
compacted will perform poorly regardless of the water-cement ratio.
3.1.2.2.2 Aggregate particle distribution
Practically any sound aggregate can be combined to produce a given strength
concrete. However, when particles are poorly distributed the mixture can cause both
construction and performance problems. A deficiency of particles passing the 3/8 inch
(9.5 mm) sieve but retained on the No.8 (2.36 mm) sieve necessitates use of more mortar.
Figure 3.8 is a computer generated particle distribution chart for a mixture using
aggregates complying with the gradation acceptable by ASTM C33 size number 57 stone
and concrete sand. Such a mixture, if used at a reasonable mortar content, will manifest
finishing problems. Figure 3.9 describes ideal solution, which is seldom possible. Most
local aggregates can be blended in such a way as to produce a uniform particle
55
distribution when a greater attention is paid to the composite than to the individual
stockpiles. Figure 3.10 reflects the particle distribution produced by using 1923 version
of ASTM C33 and recommendations of the first issue of the Portland Cement
Association’s Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures. Most industrial nations and
some sections of the U.S.A use at least three aggregate sizes (2 coarse and 1 fine) to
assure more consistent particle distribution. The third aggregate is predominantly
intermediate size (3/8 inch to No.8 [9.5 to 2.36 mm]) to provide a bridge between the
large particles and mortar, fill major voids, and increases concrete density [11].
Perc
ent
Ret
aine
d
Sieve Size
Figure 3.8: Near gap-graded mixture [11]
Perc
ent
Ret
aine
d
Sieve Size
Figure 3.9: Optimum graded mixture [11]
56
Perc
ent
Ret
aine
d
Sieve Size
Figure 3.10: Combined gradation (1929 ASTM C33) [11] 3.1.2.3 USAF Constructability Chart 3.1.2.3.1 Coarseness Factor Chart
The Coarseness factor chart was developed during an investigation conducted
under contract with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mediterranean Division, for
construction of the Saudi Arabian National Guard Headquarters, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
The objective of materials blending for strength is to fill voids with sound, inert filler to
reduce the volume of binder needed to produce a sound product. Portland cement
concrete is no different except for adjustments for construction needs.
The combined aggregate grading should be used to calculate a coarseness factor
and a workability factor. The coarseness factor for a particular combined aggregate
gradation is determined by dividing the amount retained above the 3/8 inch (9.5 mm)
sieve by the amount retained above the No.8 sieve (2.36 mm). The workability factor is
the percentage of combined aggregate finer than the No.8 sieve. This factor can simply be
determined by using the percentage passing the No.8 sieve, from the combined aggregate
sieve analysis. The coarseness factor should not be greater than 80 nor less than 30 [23].
Optimum mix is one with a coarseness factor below 75 and workability factor above 29.
57
NOTES:
COARSENESS FACTOR =% RETAINED ABOVE 9.5mm SIEVE
1
2
45
35
25
20
30
40
304050607080
CO
ARSE
SANDY
WELLGRADED1-1/2"-3/4"
WELLGRADEDMinus 3/4"
CO
ARSE
GAP
GR
ADED
ROCKY
CONTROL LINE
AGG
REG
ATE
SIZE
FIN
E
% RETAINED ABOVE #8 SIEVEX 100
WORKABILITY FACTOR = % PASSING #8
COARSENESS FACTOR
WO
RK
ABIL
ITY
FAC
TOR
2
1
27.5
Figure 3.11: USAF Constructability Chart [23]
3.1.2.4 8-18 Method
The percent retained ranges, 8 and 18 are based on previous research including a 1974
study by James Shilstone for the U. S. Army Corps. The well-graded aggregate satisfying
8-18 gradation reduces the total surface area of the aggregate, thus reducing the water
demand of the aggregate and the total amount of water required to produce a yard of
contractor friendly concrete. The water content is well known as an important factor in
setting the shrinkage potential of the concrete mixture. This was used as a part of
MnDOT’s specification as an optional gradation incentive program. By using the percent
retained method, it is desired that there be gradual increase in material retained on each
sieve to the stone sizes larger than ½ inch (12.5 mm) and then have a gradual tapering of
the curve from the 3/8 inch (9.5 mm) sieve to the lowest sieve size. A general rule of
thumb is to keep the material retained on each sieve to less than 18 percent but more than
8 percent. Most aggregates used for concrete mixtures are deficient in the 3/8 inch (9.5
58
mm) to the No. 30 sieve sizes; therefore, most combined gradations will have a gap in the
blend size particles. A well-graded aggregate combination will have no significant peaks
and /or dips. A gap-graded aggregate combination will have peaks above 18 percent
retained or below 8 percent retained [24].
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
2 1 1/2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
Sieve Size
Perc
ent R
etai
ned
Upper Limit Lower Limit Passing Figure 3.12: Well-graded Aggregate [23]
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
2 1 1/2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
Sieve Size
Perc
ent R
etai
ned
Upper Limit Lower Limit Passing
Figure 3.13: Gap-graded Aggregate [23]
59
3.1.3 Fly Ash
Portland cement concrete is a major construction material used worldwide.
Unfortunately, the production of Portland cement releases large amounts of CO into the 2
atmosphere; for example, the production of one tonne of cement contributes
approximately one tonne of CO2 into the atmosphere. Because this gas is a major
contributor to the greenhouse effect and the global warming of the planet, the developed
countries are considering very severe regulations and limitations on the CO2 emissions
[25].
In view of the global sustainable development, it is imperative that supplementary
cementing materials be used to replace large proportions of cement in the concrete
industry. The most available supplementary cementing material worldwide is fly ash, a
by-product of the thermal power stations. It is estimated that approximately 600 million
tonnes of fly ash was available worldwide in the year 2002. At present the current
worldwide utilization rate of fly ash in concrete is about 10 percent. This indicates that
there is a potential for the use of much larger amounts of fly ash leading to significant
reductions in cement production, which would benefit the environment [25].
In addition to offering environmental advantages, fly ash also improves the
performance and quality of concrete. Fly ash affects the plastic properties of concrete by
improving workability, reducing water demand, reducing segregation and bleeding, and
lowering heat of hydration. Fly ash increases strength, reduces permeability, reduces
corrosion of reinforcing steel, increases sulfate resistance, and reduces alkali-aggregate
reaction. Fly ash concrete reaches its maximum strength slower than concrete made with
Portland cement. The techniques for working with this type of concrete are standard for
the industry and will not impact on the cost of a job.
Fly ash is defined [26] in cement and concrete terminology (ACI Committee 116)
as “the finely divided residue resulting from the combustion of ground or powdered coal,
which is transported from the firebox through the boiler by flue gases”. Fly ashes are
generally finer than cement and consist mainly of glassy-spherical particles as well as
residues of hematite and magnetite, char, and some crystalline phases formed during
cooling. Use of fly ash in concrete started in the United States in the early 1930's. The
first comprehensive study was that described in 1937, by R. E. Davis at the University of
60
California (Kobubu, 1968; Davis et al., 1937). The major breakthrough in using fly ash in
concrete was the construction of Hungry Horse Dam in 1948, utilizing 120,000 metric
tons of fly ash. This decision by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation paved the way for using
fly ash in concrete constructions [27].
Fly ashes are coal combustion by-products that consist of silica, alumina, ferric
oxides, and calcium oxide, and are classified as Class F or C based on the total measured
oxide content. Class C Fly ashes, produced when lignite or sub-bituminous coal is
burned, typically contain more than 10% calcium oxide and less than 70% of combined
alumina, silica, and ferric oxides. Class F fly ash, produced when anthracite or
bituminous coal is burned, has at least 70% alumina, silica, and ferric oxide; and Class C
has at least 50% [28].
Fly ash from combustion of pulverized coal has been used as cement replacement
in the building industry for a long time. Up to 30-40% of the cement in concrete can be
replaced. Since fly ash is pozzolanic, it interacts with the calcium hydroxide produced
during cement hydration, thus forming additional calcium silicate hydrate that enhances
the strength of the concrete. The pozzolanic property of fly ash is due to its content of
glass phase, which in turn is related to the composition of the coal and the burning
temperature [29]. Fly ash particles are almost totally spherical in shape, allowing them to
flow and blend freely in mixtures. That capability is one of the properties making fly ash
a desirable admixture for concrete.
Some of the engineering properties of fly ash that are of particular interest when
fly ash is used as an admixture or a cement addition to PCC (Plain Cement Concrete)
mixes include fineness, LOI (Loss on Ignition), chemical composition, moisture content,
and pozzolanic activity. Most specifying agencies refer to ASTM C 618 [83] when citing
acceptance criteria for the use of fly ash in concrete.
3.1.3.1 Advantages of Using Fly Ash in Concrete [84]:
• The incorporation of fly ash in concrete will improve its long-term strength and
modulus of elasticity, reduce its long-term shrinkage and creep, decrease its
permeability significantly at later ages, and enhance its long-term durability
properties.
61
• The incorporation of fly ash in concrete will increase its resistance to the
penetration of chloride ions. This is more evident at later ages.
• The incorporation of Class F fly ash in concrete improves considerably its
resistance to sulfate attack.
• The use of fly ash in concrete will reduce the amount of heat generated in the
concrete mass that, in turn, will reduce thermal gradients and thermal stresses in
concrete.
• The resistance to freezing and thawing of concrete will increase by the use of fly
ash. This property is a direct function of the air-void spacing factor in concrete
that is obtained by the proper use of air-entraining admixtures.
• The incorporation of fly ash in concrete reduces its water demand.
• The incorporation of low-calcium (ASTM Class F) fly ash in concrete helps in
mitigating the expansions caused by alkali silica reactions. Minimum replacement
levels recommended in concretes incorporating reactive aggregates are 20% low-
calcium fly ash.
• Concrete incorporating fly ash will cost less than concrete made with Portland
cement only. The actual savings will depend on the availability of fly ash, and the
transportation and handling costs involved.
3.1.4 Setting Time of Concrete
The setting of concrete represents the transition phase between a fluid and a rigid
state. It is the process through which concrete ceases to behave as a liquid and begins to
respond as a solid material. This transition period starts when concrete loses its plasticity,
becoming an unworkable material; it is complete when concrete possesses enough
strength to support externally applied loads with acceptable and stable deformation [30].
Many research efforts have been devoted to the development of a method and
apparatus to measure the rate of hardening of cement paste and concrete, using various
physical and chemical changes as the criteria, such as heat evolution, volume change,
strength gain and deformation, and changes in electrical conductivity and velocity, and
frequency of sound waves [85, 86]. However a great majority of the methods proposed
62
did not come into practical use either because of the lack of reliable data to demonstrate
their suitability for the measurement or due to the requirement of delicate techniques or
high costs.
It was in 1955 that Tuthill and Cordon developed a method of determining the
variation of the consistency of the mortar component of concrete by testing its resistance
to penetration of a set of needles with different diameter [31]. This test can be used to
determine the effects of variables such as water content, brand, type and amount of
cementitious material, or admixtures upon the time of setting. After many revisions, the
method was adopted by ASTM and is now listed as a standard test method for measuring
setting time of concrete mixtures [32].
ASTM C 403 estimates setting times in concrete by the penetration resistance
method. It defines the initial and final setting time of concrete as the elapsed time after
initial contact of cement and water, required for the mortar sieved from the concrete to
reach a penetration resistance of 3.5 MPa (500 psi) and 28 MPa (4000 psi) respectively.
The degree of solidification depends upon the rate of hydration. Up to the time of
initial setting, the concrete can be remixed or agitated without significant long-term
adverse affects. Prolonged setting of the mixture leads to increased stiffness and hardness
of the material due to the continuing hydration process. Final setting of concrete refers to
beginning phase of the ability of concrete to resist stress. Concrete setting is influenced
by a number of variables such as source, properties, type, and amount of cement, and fly
ash and other cementitious or pozzolanic materials, water/cementitious materials ratio,
temperature of the mixture, chemical admixtures etc [33].
3.1.5 Scaling Resistance of Concrete to Deicing Chemicals
In the United States, estimates for the cost of rehabilitating bridges and highways
range from $90 billion to $151 billion. Although inadequate maintenance may account
for a large portion of this problem, deicing salts can contribute to the deterioration of
Snow Belt states infrastructure not designed with winter maintenance in mind. Therefore,
concrete subjected to repeated freezing and thawing in the presence of deicing salts is
important when considering pedestrians safety, vehicular movement, and highway repair
[87].
63
Deicing salts, primarily sodium chloride, calcium chloride have been applied to
the highway infrastructure for winter maintenance since early in this century. In the late
fifties when the Interstate Highway System began to develop, sodium chloride and
calcium chloride became the deicers of choice. Since that time, other chemical deicers
have been used for snow and ice control but, little long-term freeze/thaw cycling testing
and analysis had been undertaken to understand their effect on Portland Cement Concrete
[34].
Concrete is damaged by the application of deicing agents. Sodium chloride and
calcium chloride are the most common deicers used to remove snow and ice from roads,
bridges and other paved surfaces. Their utilization however tends to magnify the
hydraulic and osmotic pressures that develop in frozen concrete, and consequently
increases the potential for deterioration usually in the form of surface scaling [35].
Work conducted by Verbeck and Kleiger [88] had shown that optimum scaling
occurs with relatively low concentrations of salt (2 to 4 percent by weight of solution).
Mechanism of Scaling Resistance of Concrete to Deicing Agents: The presence of
deicing chemicals in cement paste can have various effects on pressures induced during
freezing and thawing regimes. Salt has a supercooling effect on the water, i.e. the
temperature of ice formation is reduced. As a result freezing rate is decreased, and the
initial build up of hydraulic pressures, which generally rely on a rapid rate of freezing, is
consequently reduced [36]. Supercooled pore water, however, will eventually freeze with
a higher crystallization velocity (rate of ice front advancement) as the temperature
continues to decrease below 00 0C (32 F) [37]. This in turn, generates a greater magnitude
of hydraulic pressure. In addition, the increased concentration of salt solution in the
larger capillary pores near the concrete’s surface can increase the extent of osmotic
pressure that develops after or during freezing [36].
Other explanations on the mechanisms of deicer salt deterioration of concrete
were given by Harnik et al [89]. Water molecules in the air have a greater tendency to
condense into a salt solution than into water. This hygroscopic property of salts, along
with the newly melted ice on the surface, increases the degree of saturation of concrete
64
and further enhances the detrimental effects of hydraulic and osmotic pressures. Also
harmful to concrete is thermal shock resulting from the dry application of deicing agents
[89].
The heat required to melt snow and ice is extracted mostly from concrete.
Subsequently, through temperature gradients, internal tensile stresses of short duration
can develop, exceeding the tensile strength of concrete. Another consequence of deicer
utilization, even though a minor contributor to scaling deterioration, is the dilation
pressure due to salt crystal growth [90]. Once the solution in the larger pores reaches a
super saturated state (either by evaporation or freezing of water), salt crystallization starts
and salt molecules are drawn from smaller pores into larger ones.
Numerous tests on salt scaling have shown that the extent of damage is sensitive
to the procedure adopted. For instance, air-drying of the concrete after wet curing but
prior to exposure cycles increases the resistance to surface scaling. Moist curing of
sufficient duration for the cement paste to hydrate extensively must however precede the
drying out.
The most severe damage occurs when concrete is subjected to alternating freezing
and thawing with the deicer solution remaining on top of the specimen, rather than being
replaced with fresh water prior to refreezing.
Verbeck and Klieger [88] showed that specimens which were in continuous
contact with moisture scaled much faster than those which were permitted to dry previous
to freeze thaw cycling in the presence of deicers. It is evident, therefore, that the amount
of available freezable moisture is an important factor variable in the deterioration of
concrete by deicers in freeze-thaw environment.
Scaling under freeze conditions is dependent upon the deicer solution
concentration.
Kleiger [91] showed that in 50 cycles of freezing and thawing, solutions of 3% by
weight of deicer produced a higher rate of deterioration than either lower (to 0%) or
higher (to 16%) concentration, regardless of type of deicer (sodium chloride or calcium
chloride, urea, ethyl alcohol). In freeze thaw cycling, it is the temperature change and not
the phase change, which causes the concrete to absorb various concentrations of deicer
solutions.
65
3.1.6 Sulfate Attack on Concrete
When selecting materials for rigid pavements expected to perform for 30 plus
years material interaction with the environment should be considered. First, the
environment to which the pavements will be exposed should be examined. A wide range
of environmental conditions exist that may affect concrete durability. Aggregate, cement,
and admixtures should be selected with respect to their long-term durability.
Sulfates present in soils, groundwater, seawater, decaying organic matter, and
industrial effluent surrounding a concrete structure may permeate the concrete and react
with existing hydration products. These reactions can cause cracks in the concrete
structure [38].
Essentially, two forms of sulfate attack are known to exist:
• Reaction with monosulfate hydrate and calcium aluminate hydrate to produce
ettringite.
• Reaction with calcium hydroxide to produce gypsum; results in a decrease in pore
solution alkalinity.
3.1.6.1 Ettringite Formation by Sulfate Attack
Ettringite is a normal product of cement hydration and persists indefinitely in the
hydration products of many cements. Depending upon the cement composition,
monosulfate hydrate and calcium aluminate hydrate may form as hydration products. In
the presence of calcium hydroxide hydration and water, monosulfate hydrate and calcium
aluminate hydrate react with the sulfate to produce ettringite [38, 39].
3 CaO. Al O + 3 ( CaSO . 2 H O ) + 26 H2 3 4 2 2O 3 CaO. Al O .3 CaSO .32 H O 2 3 4 2 (Ettringite) [40]
In hardened concrete, the formation of ettringite by sulfate attack can, but does
not always, result in expansion and lead to the cracking of concrete. The physical
mechanism by which ettringite causes expansion and cracking is a matter of controversy.
Topochemical formation of ettringite with directional crystal growth and swelling of
ettringite by water adsorption are among the proposed hypotheses. It is generally
accepted that the expansion caused by sulfate attack is the result of a particular
66
mechanism associated with the ettringite reaction, or is the result of reaction other than
the formation of ettringite, such as the formation of gypsum. When a concrete structure is
expected to be exposed to an aggressive sulfate environment, a cement low in C3A, such
as Type II or Type V, is selected to avoid the reaction to form ettringite by sulfate attack
as described above. In addition, proper mix design (i.e., low w/c and use of pozzolans)
and curing are required to produce concrete less permeable to sulfates [38].
Gypsum Formation by Sulfate Attack: Gypsum, in addition to ettringite, can be
produced during sulfate attack through cation exchange reactions. Loss of stiffness and
strength and eventual expansion spalling and cracking are indicative of sulfate attack
through gypsum formation. Depending on the cation type present in the sulfate solution
(i.e., Na+ or Mg2+) both calcium hydroxide and C-S-H (the primary strength-giving
hydration product) in the cement paste may be converted to gypsum (CaSO .2H4 2O) by
sulfate attack. For sodium sulfate attack:
Na SO + Ca(OH)2 4 2 + 2H O → CaSO .2H O + 2NaOH 2 4 2
The formation of sodium hydroxide as a byproduct of the reaction ensures that the
system will remain highly alkaline, which is an essential condition for the stability of C-
S-H.
During magnesium sulfate attack:
MgSO + Ca(OH) + 2H O → CaSO .2H O + Mg(OH)4 2 2 4 2 2
3MgSO + 3CaO.2SiO4 2 .3H O + 8H O → 3(CaSO .2H O) + 3 Mg(OH)2 2 4 2 2 + 2SiO2 .H O 2
Conversion of calcium hydroxide to gypsum is accompanied by formation of magnesium
hydroxide, which is relatively insoluble and poorly alkaline. Therefore, while both forms
of attack will lead to damage by gypsum formation, magnesium sulfate attack is
considered more severe because it will also compromise the stability of the C-S-H.
Field experience has demonstrated that sulfate attack usually manifests itself in
the form of loss of adhesion and strength. It is important to note that the deterioration
most often reported in the field is not caused by ettringite formation, but is due to the
67
decomposition of CH and C-S-H to gypsum by sulfate ions and conversion of these
hydration products to aragonite (presumably due to carbonation) [92].
Proper mix design (i.e., low w/c and use of pozzolans) and curing will produce
concrete less permeable to sulfates. The use of pozzolans will also reduce the amount of
CH in the hydrated cement paste of Portland cements, calcium sulfoaluminate cements,
and fly ash-based cements. Reducing the amount of CH (Calcium Hydroxide) in the
hydrated cement paste will limit the effects of this form of sulfate attack.
Failure Criteria for Sulfate Attack: There is no universally accepted criterion for
failure of concrete exposed to sulfate rich environments. Consequently, a number of
failure criteria can be found in the literature, each distinctly different from the other. This
diversity resulted from different testing methods used by researchers. The source of
(internal/external) the cation types present (Na, Mg, etc.), the concentration of the sulfate
source and the specimen sizes and shapes (beams, cubes, cylinders, etc.) vary from test to
test. Different properties such as strength loss, change in dynamic modulus of elasticity,
expansion (length or volume), loss of mass, and visual assessment have been used to
evaluate sulfate-induced deterioration. Test specimens have been of mortar paste and
concrete. A change in any one of these factors can have significant effects on the
assessment of sulfate attack. With the establishment of standardized test ASTM C 1012
(length change) and acceptance of appropriate limits for these procedures, now findings
are more readily compared with one another. The following paragraph lists some of the
failure criteria proposed for sulfate attack by researchers.
Mather (41), as quoted by Cohen and Mather (42), designated an expansion value
of 0.1% at 28 days for mortars as failure. Mather (42) using a test procedure later
standardized as ASTM C1012 chose 0.1% increase in length as failure criterion for
mortar bars.
Mehta (43) set a failure limit based on strength reduction for cement pastes, with
a drop of strength of more than 25% indicating poor performance. Cohen and Bentur (44)
suggested the following failure limits for pastes: 5% (beam) and 2.5% (cube) loss of
mass, 0.4% expansion, and 25% reduction in strength (based on Mehta’s work).
68
ASTM Subcommittee COI.29 suggested performance limits for mortar bars tested
under ASTM C 1012 at the age of six months. Specimens with the expansion of less than
0.1% are considered to have “Moderate Sulfate Resistance” whereas those with less than
0.05% have “High Sulfate Resistance”.
3.1.7 Chloride Permeability in Concrete
Permeability is defined as the coefficient representing the rate at which water is
transmitted through a saturated specimen of concrete under an externally maintained
hydraulic gradient. Permeability is inversely linked to durability, the lower the
permeability the higher the durability of concrete [45, 46]. Given any combination of
cement and aggregates, it is generally observed that lesser the permeability of concrete is,
the greater will be its resistance to aggressive solutions or distilled water. There appears
to be an optimum cement content for permeability, a too high cement content may
increase the permeability. A comprehensive review of penetration of fluids and ions
through hardened cement paste, mortar and concrete has been given by Whiting [47].
When the pore system is unsaturated, capillary absorption and gas diffusion may
dominate. When the pore system is saturated, a flow of fluid may occur if a sufficiently
high high-pressure head occurs. At normal pressure however, diffusion of ions is the
predominant transport mechanism. For production of concrete with low permeability and
diffusivity, low water-cement ratio, thorough consolidation, good curing, and crack
prevention are key factors. Aggregate type may also be an important factor. As the water-
cement ratio of the concrete decreases, the permeability decreases [48, 49].
Preventing the ingress of chlorides to the reinforcement is one approach to
improve the durability of concrete structure. Much work has been done in measuring
concrete permeability through the steady-state flow of water under a hydraulic gradient
[50], but this was considered somewhat irrelevant to bridge decks, as it presents difficulty
with regard to its application [51]. The main mechanism for transport of chloride ions
through crack free concrete is diffusion. This was demonstrated by several researchers
[52 to 56] using classical diffusion cell. However this method requires considerable time
for completion, since steady-state values are required. Therefore, it is not suitable for the
purpose of rapid test. This led to AASHTO T-277 and ASTM 1202-91 [57].
69
The rapid chloride permeability test (RCPT), designated as AASHTO T-277 in
1983 by American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO), was the first ever test proposed for rapid qualitative assessment of chloride
permeability of plain cement concrete [58, 59].
The AASHTO Test Method T 277, “Rapid Determination of Chloride
Permeability of Concrete” was adopted in 1983, and virtually the same test procedure
was designated by the ASTM as C 1202, “Electrical Indication of concrete’s ability to
Resist Chloride Ion Penetration”. In this ASTM test, one surface of a water saturated
concrete specimen is exposed to a sodium chloride solution, and the other surface to a
sodium hydroxide solution. A 60-volt DC electrical potential is placed across the
specimen for a six-hour period. The electrical charge (in coulombs) passed through the
concrete specimen in that time represents its “rapid chloride permeability”. The ease and
speed of this test method has made it more popular compared to the other methods [60].
The AASHTO T 259 90-day ponding test was used to evaluate chloride
penetration of concrete for many years prior to the adaptation of the rapid test (AASHTO
T 277 or ASTM C 1202). Permeability, diffusion and absorption are the important
physical processes controlling chloride penetration into concrete during the 90-day
ponding test; where as electrical resistivity appears to be the primary factor controlling
charge passed through the rapid test. The sensitivity of the two methods to these different
physical processes may cause significant variations in the ranking of permeabilities of
various concretes. As stated in the scope of ASTM C 1202, the rapid test procedure is
applicable to types of concrete in which correlation has been established between this
rapid test procedure and long-term chloride ponding procedures such as AASHTO T 259.
The rapid test method ASTM C 1202 is now commonly required by construction
project specifications for both precast and cast-in-place concrete. An arbitrary value of
less than 1000 coulombs, is typically selected by the engineer or owner. This rating
usually chosen from the scale shown below is characterized as “very low” chloride ion
penetrability (Table 3.1). Trial Mixtures are typically tested to determine if the specified
maximum charge passed can be met [93].
The use of concretes with compressive strengths in excess of 41 Mpa (6000 psi)
began in the 1960’s and has progressed steadily since then. Today, concretes with
70
compressive strengths of 69 Mpa (10000 psi) can be routinely produced [94]. The initial
applications of high strength concretes were in columns of high-rise buildings. The
availability of high-strength concrete made it possible to achieve greater heights, to
reduce column sizes and to provide greater stiffness to buildings. The focus of
applications has now shifted to bridges where potential applications in pre-stressed
concrete are now being pursued. The improved durability, which occurs with low
permeability, has led to broader applications such as design of longer life highways and
parking structures.
Table 3.1 Chloride Permeability Based on charge passed
Charge Passed Chloride Typical of
(coulombs) Permeability
High High water/cement ratio >4000
( > 0.6 ), pcc
2,000 – 4,000 Moderate Moderate water/cement ratio
(0.4 – 0.5), pcc
1,000 –2,000 Low Low water/cement ratio
( < 0.4 ), pcc
100 –1,000 Very Low Latex-modified concrete,
Silica-fume concrete
< 100 Negligible Polymer impregnated concrete
High-strength concrete can be used to increase [95-97] the span length of girders,
reduce the number of girders required in a given bridge or allow for the use off shallower
sections. The use of high-strength high performance concrete in bridge girders has,
generally, reduced the number of girders required for a given span length or has resulted
in the ability to increase span lengths.
71
When high strength concretes were produced from the basic ingredients of
cement, aggregates and water, the maximum achievable compressive strength was limited
to 62 Mpa (9000 psi). However, with the availability of mineral admixtures in the form of
fly ash, slag, and silica fume, and with the advent of high-range water-reducing agents,
compressive strengths as high as 135 Mpa (20,000 psi) can now be achieved with
concretes that are easy to place.
High performance concrete (HPC) is any concrete that has one or more of its
attributes enhanced beyond the ordinary concrete to meet the performance need for a
specific application [98]. Examples of characteristics that may be considered critical for
an application are ease of placement, compaction without segregation, early age strength,
long term mechanical properties, permeability, density, heat of hydration, toughness,
volume stability, long life in severe environments.
Because many characteristics of high performance concrete are interrelated, a
change in one usually results in changes in one or more of the other characteristics.
Consequently, if several characteristics have to be taken into account in producing
concrete for the intended application, each of these characteristics must be clearly
specified.
HPC has many useful applications and potential benefits to the highway industry,
Which include:
• Better performance and service life of highway facilities.
• Less maintenance, because of enhanced concrete durability.
• Lower life-cycle cost.
• Less construction time, as in repairs and fast track constructions.
• Higher productivity and quality of pre-cast and prestressed products.
• Less consumption of materials and more conservation of resources
High-performance concrete for bridges is a new approach to concrete materials
engineering which places increased emphasis on both strength and durability. Although
compressive strength has typically been the main consideration in concrete mix design,
specified compressive strengths are usually much lower than what can be currently
achieved. In addition, durability concerns have often been limited to providing protection
from freeze-thaw deterioration.
72
The durability of concrete depends largely on its ability to resist the penetration of
water and aggressive compounds. Four major types [99] of environmental distress occur
in reinforced concrete: corrosion of reinforcement, alkali aggregate reactivity, freeze-
thaw deterioration, and attack by sulfates. Corrosion of steel occurs most extensively.
In each case, water or solutions penetrating the concrete initiate or accelerate the
distress, making costly repairs necessary. Air-entrained concretes with low permeability
are required to resist the infiltration of harmful solutions and provide the necessary
durability when exposed to the environment [100]. Low-permeability concretes perform
better in severe environments than ordinary Portland cement concretes (PCC) and can be
categorized as high-performance concretes (HPC).
3.1.8 Alkali-aggregate reactivity (AAR)
Alkali reactive sands or coarse aggregates, when used in concrete structures,
produce severe deterioration. It is known that certain internal reactions between the
cement alkalis and aggregates cause harmful expansions. It is also understood that highly
variable expansions develop within the concrete in the long term because of alkali silica
reactions (ASR). The ASR expansion is characterized by the production of a gel-like
reaction product. ASR occurs in the concrete structures when these requirements are met.
• Reactive forms of silica or silicate in the aggregates
• Sufficient alkali (sodium and potassium) primarily available from the cement
• Sufficient moisture available in the concrete.
If one of these requirements is not met, then the expansion due to ASR may not occur.
The potential ASR problem has gained a lot of attention from the Department of
Transportation, product suppliers, and state highway departments in every state. Even
though this problem has had worldwide attention for the past 60 years, effective measures
for inhibiting the alkali-aggregate and alkali-silica reactions have not been found till now.
It is important to find out such measures for improving the durability of concrete
structures.
In order to prevent these deleterious expansions the following options are
available.
73
• To use low alkali cement
• To avoid reactive aggregates and
• To partially replace cement with fly ash
Low alkali cements have been used nation-wide to mitigate AAR in concrete.
However it is known that low alkali cements have also been associated with severe AAR
in pavements because of the deicing salts used in highways, which increases the total
available alkali in concrete.
The depletion of good quality aggregate near construction sites has created a need
to develop methods that will permit the successful use of marginal aggregates.
Stanton (1942) [61] first recognized the alkali-aggregate reaction, and since then,
many researchers and scientists have contributed towards a better understanding of the
phenomena of AAR. Even though the construction industry was not fully aware of the
impact of AAR in the forties, researchers [62 to 65] had fully recognized the impending
disaster that would be caused by AAR. Investigations had shown that argillaceous
limestone and cherts had been causing a serious menace to durability in many regions.
Because of its concern with design, construction and maintenance of hundreds of
concrete structures, the Bureau of Reclamation had realized the importance of research
directed towards the discovery of the causes for the deterioration phenomena, and means
of controlling it. In 1940, a research program was initiated in the Denver Laboratories to
provide this information. A number of other agencies also took part in this program. Even
though significant understanding of the phenomena was achieved through the
investigations, the problem was not solved fully. However at that stage, it was concluded
that the deterioration of concrete due to AAR is due to the chemical reaction between the
aggregates and the constituents of the Portland cement [62 to 65]. Petrography
examination of concrete, chemical analysis of gel samples taken from various concrete
structures, physical methods, and metallographic microscopes were utilized in the study
of the AAR phenomena [63 to 65].
In the past, only a few researchers were concerned about the problem of AAR.
Now with the recognition of the deterioration of concrete structures in many parts of the
world due to AAR, the situation has changed dramatically. Presently, AAR has become
one of the primary concerns of the engineering community.
74
Causes of Alkali-aggregate reaction: The alkali-aggregate reaction (AAR) is due to the
chemical reaction between the alkalis (sodium and potassium) present in the cement and
certain minerals present in the aggregates that are used in concrete. Abundant field and
laboratory experience has demonstrated that the alkalis released during hydration of high
alkali Portland cement react with certain rocks and minerals of aggregates. These
reactions produce a gel and result in the deterioration of concrete. The factors
contributing to the reaction are the presence of sufficient alkali, availability of moisture
and the presence of potentially reactive silica [101].
Basic concepts of alkali-aggregate reactivity and expansion mechanisms: The micro-
pores in the matrix of hardened concrete are filled with a highly basic (i.e., pH > 12.5)
fluid that consists mainly of dissolved alkali hydroxides of potassium and sodium with
minor amounts of other elements (e.g., Ca+2 -2, SO4 ) (Diamond) [102]. Some mineral
phases within the coarse and (or) fine aggregates in concrete are chemically unstable and
react deleteriously in such high pH environment, sometimes inducing the premature
distress (i.e., internal expansion, cracking, loss in serviceability) of the affected element.
This phenomenon is known as alkali-aggregate reactions (AAR). Two types of AAR are
generally recognized: (1) alkali-carbonate reaction (ACR), and (2) alkali-silica reaction
(ASR); they differ in the type of mineral phases and mechanisms involved.
Alkali-carbonate reaction: The first case of ACR was reported in the late 1950s in
Ontario, Canada (Swenson) [103]. Typically, argillaceous dolomitic limestones
susceptible to ACR petrographically consist of rhombic crystals of dolomite, 20 to 50 μm
in size, disseminated in a matrix of microcrystalline calcite (typically 2 to 6 μm in size)
and clay minerals (< 2 μm in size). Under the attack by the alkali hydroxides of the
concrete pore fluid, the dolomite crystals undergo a dedolomitization process shown
below, thus opening channels through which ions from the pore fluid can penetrate
deeper in the reacting particles.
CaMg(CO ) + 2(Na,K)OH → Mg(OH) + CaCO3 2 2 3 + (Na,K) CO2 3
75
{Dolomite + alkali hydroxides → brucite + calcite + alkali carbonates}
Expansions and cracking of the concrete undergoing ACR basically originates
from the expansion of individual reacting coarse limestone aggregate particles, possibly
through one or more combinations of the following process (Tang et al) [191 to 192],
(Gillott ) [104]:
• Hydraulic pressures caused by the migration of water molecules and alkali ions in
the restricted spaces of the calcite/clay matrix around dolomite rhombs
• Adsorption of alkali ions and water molecules on the surface of the active clay
minerals scattered around the dolomite grains
• Growth and rearrangement of products of dedolomitization (i.e., brucite and
calcite)
The alkali carbonates react eventually with the Portlandite in concrete matrix thus
regenerating alkali hydroxides in the pore solution as show in (2)
(2) (Na,K)2CO + Ca(OH) → CaCO + 2(Na,K)OH 3 2 3
{Alkali carbonates + Portlandite → calcite + alkali hydroxides}
This suggests that ACR could proceed almost indefinitely. Aggregates susceptible
to ACR are generally found to induce rapid and extensive expansion and cracking in
concrete prism test and deleterious expansion and cracking within three years in the field
when other conditions essential for ACR are present (Rogers et al) [105].
Alkali-silica reaction (ASR) : Cases of concrete distress due to ASR have been reported
worldwide. The problem is fundamentally related to the increased solubility/instability of
amorphous, disordered, poorly micro- or crypto-crystalline forms of silica in high pH
solutions. Two categories of ASR are recognized according to the silica form involved
(Fournier and Berube ) [106]
• Rock types incorporating poorly crystalline or meta-stable silica minerals, e.g.,
opal, tridymite, cristobalite, and volcanic glasses. Concrete elements made with
aggregates incorporating such silica minerals, even in lesser amounts (1 to 2%)
76
may suffer extensive expansion and cracking within few years after construction
when other conditions for AAR exist.
• Quartz-bearing rocks incorporating very fine grained quartz or some varieties of
macro granular quartz. This type is characterized by a delay in the onset of
expansion and cracking of concrete that can take from 10 to even 25 years to
manifest itself significantly in the field when other conditions essential for AAR
are present.
The mechanisms of reaction/expansion for most of the alkali-silica reactive
aggregates can be summarized as follows:
Under the attack by the alkali hydroxides, microcrystalline quartz within the
aggregate particles progressively transforms into a viscous reaction product called
“alkali-silica gel”. Localized differences in free energy would then induce water and
various ionic species in the pore fluid to flow into the gel. Since the gel is first restrained
to spread freely into the cement paste, tensile stresses build up and cracking occurs when
the pressure generated at localized sites of expansive reaction exceeds the tensile strength
of the aggregate particles and of the cement paste. Once extensive micro cracking has
occurred, the gel spreads out freely through the cracks in the cement paste, where it
progressively loses its expansive properties by the incorporation of calcium through an
ion-exchange process with hydrates (Ca (OH) , CSH) of the paste. 2
Prezzi et al [107-108] have discussed in detail about the ASR product gels
produced due to swelling caused by electrical double-layer repulsive forces.Mitchell and
Leming [109] conducted a study on quantity of alkali-silica gel and its effect on concrete
properties based on the tests at varying ages on twenty bridges in North Carolina.
77
3.1.8.1 Conditions conducive to alkali-aggregate reactivity
Effect of aggregates: A reactive aggregate must be present with all other parameters
concerning concrete mixture proportioning being constant. The reactivity level of alkali-
silica reactive aggregates generally increases with (1) increasing amount of
microcrystalline quartz within individual rock particles, (2) increasing amount of reactive
particles in the aggregate and decreasing aggregate particle size. Some fine and coarse
aggregates with rock particles incorporating opal or crypto crystalline quartz as reactive
constituents (e.g., some opaline shalestone, flint, porous chert) display a pessimum effect,
i.e., a maximum expansion is obtained for a given proportion and (or) size fraction of
such reactive particles.
Monteiro et al. [110] have suggested that ASR depends on more factors than
simply crystallinity of quartz. Deformed granitic rocks provided a good system to
quantify these parameters. Further the texture analysis of these rocks indicated that there
was no quantitative relationship between the degree of deformation and reactivity. +Effect of alkali hydroxides: Na , K+-OH- in the pore fluid is the driving force for AAR.
This generally a function of the alkali content of the cement used [111]. The expansion of
concrete incorporating aggregates generally increases with increasing total alkali content
in the concrete (expressed as Na2O equivalent); however, the threshold total alkali
content in concrete necessary to initiate and sustain expansive or deleterious ASR varies
from one aggregate to another.
Alkalis from sources other than the cement in concrete, e.g., aggregates (alkali-
bearing minerals such as zeolites, dawsonite (Gillott and Rogers) [112], alkali
feldspars/feldspathoids, unwashed sea dredged sands (Hobbs) [113]), chemical
admixtures (e.g., superplasticizers), mixture water, and high-alkali fly ashes (Duchesne
and Berube) [114] can also contribute in raising the (Na+, K+-OH-) in the pore fluid, thus
increasing the risk of distress due to AAR in the presence of reactive aggregates.
Migration of alkalis through various processes such as local surface evaporation,
electric/magnetic fields or currents (Ozol) [115], cathodic protection (Shayan and Song)
[116], may locally increase the (Na+, K+-OH-) in the concrete pore fluid, thus
contributing in anisotropic reaction/expansion and deterioration in/of the element
affected.
78
Bellew [117, 118] showed from his laboratory tests that alkali contents of pore
solutions in concrete cores taken from Saunders generating station were higher than the
estimated value. The excess alkali in the pore solution could possibly have been derived
from the clay minerals in the limestone aggregate. The results of this investigation
indicated that the amount of leachable alkali would probably be sufficient to account for
the enhanced alkali contents in the pore solution in concrete cores from the structure.
Effect of Moisture: Alkali-aggregate reactivity typically develops or sustains in concrete
elements with internal relative humidity greater than 80-85%. As indicated before, the
alkali-silica gel needs water to swell and exert disruptive expansive pressure on the
concrete. Laboratory investigations have shown that partially dehydrated gel due to
partial drying of the specimen can be re-hydrated and re-expanded if additional water is
supplied to the specimen; however, dried and carbonated gels are unlikely to regain their
expansive properties.
Thin concrete elements are unlikely to be deleteriously affected by AAR when
exposed to indoor or outdoor constantly dry conditions (i.e., with no external supply of
moisture) or when immersed in fresh or sea water because of the leaching of alkalis or the
dilution of [Na+, K+-OH-] from the concrete pore fluid. On the other hand, massive
concrete elements incorporating a reactive aggregate are often at risk of AAR, even those
kept indoors or in arid desert conditions, because of the high internal humidity conditions
maintained in such elements (Stark and Depuy) [119].
Field and laboratory investigations have shown that surface treatment of thin
concrete elements with some silanes and siloxanes can effectively limit the ingress of
moisture and reduce relative humidity inside such elements, with significant reduction in
ASR expansion rates and better external appearance of the treated elements (Berube et
al.) [120, 121].
Environmental conditions: Concrete elements undergoing AAR and exposed to cyclic
exposure to sun, rain, and wind or portions of concrete piles in tidal zones often show
severe surface cracking because of induced tension cracking in the “less expansive”
surface layer under the expansive thrust of the inner concrete core [119]. Berube [122]
79
performed laboratory experiments on concrete cylinders (9255 mm in diameter and 310
mm long) incorporating a highly-reactive aggregate and subjected to different
combinations of exposure conditions and showed: (1) test cylinders subjected to wetting
and drying cycles expanded significantly less but showed more extensive surface
cracking than those constantly stored at 100% R.H. and 38oC, and (2) test cylinders
exposed to freezing and thawing cycles expanded significantly more and showed more
surface macro cracking than those constantly stored at 100% R.H., and 38oC.
Surface cracking due to the AAR can accelerate the overall deterioration of
concrete through processes such as corrosion of reinforcing bars, freezing and thawing,
and sulfate attack; on the other hand, AAR can itself be induced or accelerated once a
concrete element incorporating potentially reactive aggregates has cracked due to one or
many of the above deleterious mechanisms.
Concrete permeability and water-to-cement ratio: The availability of moisture is
critical to the development of deleterious or excessive expansion due to AAR. A lower
water-to-cement ratio (w/c) in concrete generally leads to improved mechanical
properties, lower internal free water content, lower concrete permeability, and reduced
ingress/movement of moisture inside the concrete.
Numerous cases of ASR in hydraulic dams were reported involving mass
concretes with low cement factors, and high w/c and permeability characteristics. In these
elements, reaction rates are generally slow but the excess hydration water is likely present
in sufficient amounts to sustain AAR for prolonged periods of time (Stark) [123].
Reinforcement and other restraints: Steel reinforcement or other restraint arising from
applied compressive stress ranging from 1 to 4 Mpa may reduce significantly and even
control ASR expansion in concrete (Swamy) [124]. However, surface cracking due to
AAR is often not significantly reduced by the use of internal or external restraint. Well-
anchored and confined reinforcement will post-tension the concrete undergoing
expansion due to AAR; however, stresses caused by ASR can be large enough to cause
bond and shear failures between concrete and reinforcement in the case of improperly
detailed reinforced concrete members [124].
80
Ahmed et al. [125] have discussed the effect of ASR on the bearing capacity of
plain and reinforced concrete. It was found that the bearing capacity was more affected
by ASR and change in loading geometry than by changes in any other variable.
Temperature, heat of hydration, and temperature gradients: Several laboratory
investigations have shown that increasing temperature increases AAR reaction/expansion
rates but may result in lower ultimate expansion [113]. Massive concrete elements may
be relatively more at risk regarding AAR because of the time required to dissipate the
heat resulting from cement hydration. Also, high temperature gradients generated at early
ages in massive concrete elements can generate micro cracking, with the risk of
accelerating moisture ingress and consequently the development of AAR.
3.1.9 Drying Shrinkage in Concrete
Shrinkage is seemingly a simple phenomenon of contraction of concrete upon loss
of water. Strictly speaking, shrinkage is a three dimensional deformation, but it is usually
expressed as a linear strain because in the majority of exposed concrete elements one or
two dimensions are much smaller than the third dimension, and the effect of shrinkage is
greatest in the largest dimension. In common usage, the term shrinkage is a shorthand
expression for drying shrinkage of hardened concrete exposed to air with a relative
humidity of less than just under l00 percent [126]. The loss of moisture from concrete
after it hardens, and hence, drying shrinkage, is inevitable unless the concrete is
submerged in water or is in an environment with 100% relative humidity (RH). Thus,
drying shrinkage is a phenomenon that routinely occurs and merits careful consideration
in concrete design and construction.
Drying shrinkage is defined as the time dependent volume reduction due to loss of
water at constant relative humidity and temperature. The driving force for drying
shrinkage is evaporation of water from capillary pores in hydrated cement paste at their
ends, which are exposed to air with a relative humidity lower than that within the
capillary pores. The water in the capillary pores called the free water is held by forces.
81
These forces are stronger, when the diameters of the capillary pores are smaller.
Therefore the loss of water is progressive at a decreasing rate [69].
Factors contributing to drying shrinkage: This may be categorized as, mixture
composition, curing conditions, ambient exposure conditions, and element geometry.
With respect to mixture compositions, the influence of aggregate type, cement type and
fineness, cement and water content, and mineral and chemical admixtures will be
addressed.
The lesser water there is in the mix, the lesser will be the evaporation after curing
and consequently less drying shrinkage is to be expected. The drying shrinkage may
roughly decrease at a rate about 30 microstrain per 5.9 kg/m3 (10 lbs./cu.yd) [56].
Water content: Charles K.Nmai et al. [238] have found that the total water content of a
concrete mix has a significant effect on drying shrinkage. For a concrete mix, which had
cement content of 420 kg/m3 (708 lbs./cu.yd.) and a water cement ratio (w/c) of 0.45-that
is water content of about 190 kg/m3 (320 lbs./cu.yd.); the drying shrinkage was 0.06
percent. They had observed a 50 percent reduction in shrinkage by reducing the water
content to 145 kg/m3 (244 lb./cu.yd.). Therefore to minimize the drying shrinkage of
concrete, the total water content must be kept as low as possible. Aggregates: Aggregates influence the drying shrinkage in two different ways: first, the
use of a high coarse aggregate content will minimize the total water and paste contents of
the concrete mix and therefore, drying shrinkage. The effects of aggregate cement ratio
and w/c ratio on drying shrinkage have shown that, at a given w/c ratio, drying shrinkage
is reduced as the aggregate-cement ratio is increased. With a w/c ratio of 0.40, a 50
percent reduction in drying shrinkage was obtained when the aggregate-cement ratio was
increased from 3 and 5 [127]. In a similar study conducted by Neville, he has concluded
that increasing the aggregate content (especially the coarse particles) will decrease
shrinkage, while increasing the amounts of water and cement in the mix will result in an
increase in shrinkage [128].
Secondly, certain aggregates yield to the pressure from the shrinkage paste and do
not provide sufficient restraint against the shrinkage of the paste. It is emphasized that the
82
elastic modulus, creep and shrinkage are also affected by the stiffness of the aggregate
[129]. The use of sandstone and slate should be avoided if low shrinkage is desired.
Krauss and Rogalla [130] reported that aggregate type has the most significant effect on
cracking in the tests, where river rounded gravel concrete cracked earlier compared to
crushed limestone concrete. Purvis and Babaei [131] observed that use of soft aggregates
such as sandstone tends to result in an increase in drying shrinkage and that the use of
hard aggregate such as quartz, dolomite and limestone tends to result in decreased
shrinkage.
Admixtures: In a research conducted by Rixon and Mailvagabam [132] the effect of
admixture on concrete shrinkage appears to depend on the type and dosage of admixture
and the method of addition (i.e., direct addition or addition with simultaneous reductions
in either cement or water content). Chemical admixtures will tend to increase shrinkage
unless they are used in such a way as to reduce the evaporable water content of the mix,
in which case the shrinkage will be reduced. Air-entraining agents, however, seem to
have little effect [133]. Based on a study by Charles K Nmai [127] reduced drying
shrinkage has been obtained with the use of a naphthalene condensate-based HRWR
admixture. A proven water reducer [134] should be used to minimize the water content
and provide the optimum placing consistency. An HRWR with a history of success on
similar projects can reduce water content from 18% to 30%. This water reduction will
result in significant shrinkage reduction. Hiroshi Tokuda, et al., stated that an 18% water
reduction resulted in 12% reduction in shrinkage.
Cement type: The effects of cement type are generally negligible except as rate-of-
strength-gain changes. Even here the interdependence of several factors makes it difficult
to isolate causes. Rapid hardening cement gains strength more rapidly than ordinary
cement but shrinks somewhat more than other types, primarily due to an increase in the
water demand with increasing fineness. Shrinkage compensating cements can be used to
minimize shrinkage cracking if they are used with appropriate restraining reinforcement
[134].
According to Nijad. I. Fatuhi and Husain Al-Khaiat [135] the type of cement used
in the concrete influenced the initial swelling and the maximum drying shrinkage. White
83
cement concrete exhibited the least initial swelling and drying shrinkage, followed by
concrete containing sulfate resisting cement, and then by concrete containing ordinary
Portland cement.
In their parametric study, Krauss and Rogalla [130] examined stresses for more
than 18000 scenarios (hypothetical bridges). They concluded that stresses that cause
transverse cracking are largely due to shrinkage and changing bridge temperature and to a
lesser extent due to traffic. Based on their study, Krauss and Rogalla [130] proposed the
following recommendations in the three categories of design, material selection, and
construction techniques.
They considered material properties as the most important factor affecting
transverse cracking. They also recommend the use of low cement content, large aggregate
content, crushed aggregate, aggregate with low thermal expansion, low modulus of
elasticity and high conductivity, use of type II and IV and shrinkage compensating
cement and water reducing admixtures. Long-term shrinkage reductions, with no curing
applied, ranged from 25% to 38%, depending on cement combination used.
Purvis and Babaei [131] conducted laboratory experiments to investigate effects
of aggregate source, cement source and type, and fly ash on shrinkage. A total of 10
different mixes were tested in this part of the study. Results from the tests on various
cement mixes showed that cement source and type had a significant effect on drying
shrinkage.
One of the two identical mixes, both with type I cement but with different
sources, showed nearly twice the drying shrinkage compared to the other. Furthermore,
the experiments showed the effect of the type of cement, type II cement showed lower
shrinkage in comparison to other types. Also, the experiments showed the effect of the
cement type on heat of hydration and thermal shrinkage. The source of cement (i.e.
different brand names) is an important factor and that the type II cement results in less
temperature increase than type I cement. Fly ash tests were inconclusive because of
limited number of tests.
84
3.1.10 Creep and Shrinkage in Concrete
Creep is the time-dependent increase in strain of hardened concrete subjected to
sustained stress [72]. As defined, creep does not include any immediate elastic strains
caused by loading or any shrinkage or swelling caused by moisture changes [73]. It is
usually determined by subtracting, from the total measured strain in a loaded specimen,
the sum of the initial instantaneous strain (usually considered elastic) due to sustained
stress, the shrinkage, and any thermal strain in an identical load-free specimen, subjected
to the same history of relative humidity and temperature conditions [72]. If the sustained
load is removed, the strain decreases immediately by an amount equal to the elastic strain
at the given age; this is generally lower than the elastic strain on loading since the elastic
modulus has increased in the intervening period. This instantaneous recovery is followed
by a gradual decrease in strain, called creep recovery. This recovery is not complete
because creep is not simply a reversible phenomenon [73].
Creep is closely related to shrinkage and both phenomena are related to the
hydrated cement paste. As a rule, a concrete that is resistant to shrinkage also has a low
creep potential. The principal parameter influencing creep is the load intensity as a
function of time; however, creep is also influenced by the composition of the concrete,
the environmental conditions, and the size of the specimen [72].
It was also shown that the load induced time dependent deformations of concrete
are largely attributed to movement of capillary and absorbed water within the concrete
system, movement of water, the environment, and development and propagation of
internal micro cracks [136].
The rate and magnitude of creep strain associated with the first two process would
depend on the relative volume of pores and spaces in the cement gel, and on the amount
of water occupying these pores at the time of loading [74]. Specimens with higher water
cement ratio will have capillary porosity of cement paste, as well as adsorbed water, and
therefore will have larger final creep [75]. However, at early ages, water in capillary
pores will move first, then followed by the movement of adsorbed water, the creep due to
the later process may commence relatively earlier for specimen with low water cement
ratio and thus may result in somewhat greater earlier creep [74].
85
Ali and Kesler [76] expressed the creep as a function of the degree of hydration of
cement paste in terms of a compliance factor. It is suggested that the effects of
temperature on the creep of Portland cement concrete was caused mainly by the physical
changes of the liquid paste of the gel.
One study shows that there is little influence on creep of variation in cement
content at fixed free w/c ratio. However at the highest cement (and therefore water)
content tested, creep strain was almost double that measured for the other mixes. This
may be attributed to the greater proportion of paste and reduced proportion of aggregate
in the mix, i.e. similar effects of those for drying shrinkage [137].
Strength of concrete has a considerable influence on creep and within a wide
range; creep is inversely proportional to the strength of concrete at the time of application
of load. From this it follows that creep is closely related to the water/cement ratio. There
is no doubt that the modulus of elasticity of aggregate controls the amount of creep that
can be realized and concretes made with different aggregates exhibit creep of varying
magnitudes [73].
3.1.11 Freeze Thaw Resistance of Concrete
In winter, concrete is exposed to temperature cycles where water freezes to ice
and ice melts to water. This is known as freezing and thawing. Damage of concrete under
repeated cycles of freezing and thawing (frost attack) is a major problem of durability.
Concrete subjected to repeated cycles of freezing and thawing may deteriorate rapidly, or
it may remain in service for many years without showing any signs of distress. Failure of
the material may take the form of loss of strength, crumbling, or some combination of the
two. Concrete in a wet environment like bridge piers, pavements near oceans, wharves,
and offshore structures, for example are very vulnerable. Appropriate mix designs and
good engineering practice can produce concrete that is durable under severe climatic
conditions [77].
Hydraulic Pressure: Water in the capillary pores of the cement paste expands upon
freezing. If the required volume is greater than the space available, the pressure of
86
expansion drives off the excess water. The magnitude of this hydraulic pressure depends
on the permeability of the cement paste, the degree of saturation, the distance to the
nearest unfilled void, and the rate of freezing. If the pressure exceeds the tensile strength
of the paste at any point, it will cause local cracking. In repeated cycles of freezing and
thawing in wet environment water will enter the cracks during the thawing portion of the
cycle only to freeze again later, and there will be progressive deterioration with each
cycle [77].
Ice Accretion: Even when the hydraulic pressure is not great enough to damage the
paste, pressure may build up because of the ice accumulation in the capillary pores.
Water in the gel pores is under the influence of surface forces and thus does not freeze
until the temperature drops to the point at which it can freeze with the extremely fine
radius of curvature associated with the gel pores. Cordon [78] gave a freezing
temperature of –780 C (-1080 F) for the water in the gel pores; in practical situations
water will remain liquid as long as it remains in the gel. At 00 C (320 F), the ice in the
capillaries is in equilibrium with the water in the gel pores. As the temperature drops, the
gel water becomes super cooled, but since it has a higher free energy than the ice in the
capillaries, it can flow into the capillaries to freeze. In this manner, ice accumulates in the
capillaries, eventually exerting pressure on the capillary walls. Near the bottom of the
frozen zone of concrete, water can be transported into the gel pores and then into the ice.
This is similar to one of the mechanisms underlying “frost–heave” of soils, and it may
play a role in damaging concrete under certain conditions. The net effect on the concrete
is a loss of volume due to the loss of gel water and a potential increase of volume in the
capillary pores. When the concrete thaws, some of the melt water may return to the gel
pores, but the process is not completely reversible. It is important to note that the failure
by hydraulic pressure and failure by ice accretion occur under different circumstances.
Hydraulic pressures will be greatest (and therefore most likely to cause damage) when
the rate of freezing is rapid. Ice accretion, on the other hand, progresses with time and is
more likely to cause damage if the concrete remains frozen for an extended period.
87
3.1.11.1 Factors affecting Durability of Concrete in Freezing and Thawing
Air Entrainment: The greatest single factor in the durability of concrete in freezing and
thawing is the presence of a system of well-distributed air voids in the paste. In
discussing the durability of concrete specimens tested under conditions of severe natural
exposure, Cook [145] states, “Well-made concrete containing good quality materials will
not ordinarily withstand the exposure for more than one winter unless the concrete
contains proper amounts of entrained air.” It is believed that air voids reduce the
hydraulic pressure due to freezing by providing a place where the water flowing out of
the capillary pores can freeze. Hydraulic pressure increases with distance from a void.
Within a certain radius of the void, the pressure is less than the tensile strength of the
paste. The space enclosed by this radius may be thought of as a zone of protection for the
paste. When the air voids are properly distributed, these zones overlap and there is no
location where the hydraulic pressure can increase to the point of damaging the paste.
During long periods of freezing, ice can accumulate in the air voids without danger of
building up excessive pressure. The maximum acceptable air-void spacing factor is
normally taken to be 0.20 mm (0.008 in) and air content required to achieve this spacing
is usually in the range of four to six percent by volume of concrete, depending on the
volume of the paste in the concrete.
Water-cement ratio: Air entrainment alone does not ensure durability. The water
cement ratio of the concrete also influences durability in several ways. A low water
cement ratio makes the paste stronger and better able to withstand the tensile stresses
imposed by hydraulic pressure or ice accretion. It reduces the amount of freezable water
initially present in the paste. It also makes the paste less permeable, an advantage in a wet
environment where, over time, water will continue to migrate into the concrete. The
lower the permeability, the longer it takes for the saturation to reach a critical level.
Aggregate: Like the cement paste, the aggregate particles may be subject to internal
hydraulic pressure. Aggregates that become saturated must accommodate the expansion
of freezing water either by expelling the excess or expanding. Aggregate normally has
greater tensile strength than hydrated cement paste, thus it may not fracture, but its
88
expansion will cause distress in the surrounding paste. In general, it is best to avoid using
highly absorptive aggregate. Laboratory freeze- thaw tests can indicate the influence of a
particular aggregate on durability, but it is important to test samples of concrete and not
rely on tests of the aggregate alone [146].
Curing: The greater the degree of hydration, the less freezable water is present in the
pore structure and the greater is the tensile strength of the hydrated paste. Therefore, it is
best to allow adequate time for curing before the concrete is subjected to freezing.
Accelerating the cure by using steam will result in an altered pore structure, and under
such conditions the capillary pores are thought to be less finely divided than in concrete
cured at room temperature [147]. Thus for a given mix design cured at elevated
temperatures, more freezable water will be present. In addition, if the concrete is allowed
to dry out before being subjected to freezing, it will be less susceptible to damage than if
it were to remain saturated after curing.
Effect of Aggregates on Freezing and Thawing of Concrete:
The freeze-thaw resistance of an aggregate, especially important in exterior concrete, is
related to its porosity, absorption, permeability, and pore structure. Steven and William
[151] described this physical deterioration as follow:
An aggregate particle might absorb so much water that it could not accommodate
the expansion and hydraulic pressure that occurred during the freezing of water. The
result was expansion of the aggregate and possible disintegration of the concrete.
Generally the offending aggregate was coarse rather than fine aggregate particles with
higher porosity values and medium-sized pores 0.1 – 0.5mm (0.003 – 0.019 in.) that were
easily saturated and caused concrete deterioration and popouts. Larger pores did not
usually become saturated or cause distress, and water in very fine pores did not freeze
readily.
Neville [152] also indicated that pores smaller than 4 to 5 mm (0.157 to 0.196 in.)
were critical, because they are large enough to permit water to enter but not large enough
89
to allow easy drainage under the pressure of ice. This pressure, in fully confined space at
-20°C (-4 0 F), can be as high as 199.9 MPa (29,000 psi).
One of the most critical problems related to the freeze-thaw resistance of an
aggregate is the D-cracking, which is a function of the pore properties of a certain types
of aggregate particles and the environment. This problem can be reduced either by
selecting aggregates that perform better in freeze-thaw cycles or, where marginal
aggregates must be used, by reducing the maximum particle size [152].
Several recent studies on the freeze-thaw durability of air-entrained concrete for
marine and arctic construction had been conducted. Moukwa [153] tested concrete with
w/c = 0.44 and 4% air in both fresh and seawater. Two laboratory procedures were used,
one simulating the field freeze-thaw conditions the concrete undergoes in the tidal zone
and the other similar to ASTM C 666, Procedure A. The results of the study suggested
that surface effects would probably play an important role in the deterioration of concrete
under arctic conditions. Whiting and Burg [154] tested high-strength lightweight
concretes produced from two different lightweight aggregate sources subjected to a
variety of freezing and thawing test procedures and conditioning methods. The concrete
strengths ranged from 54 to 73 MPa (7,700 to 10,400 psi) and their unit weight varied
from 1,920 to 2080 kg/m3 3 (120 to 130 lbs/ft ). Silica fume, fly ash, and GGBS (Ground
Granulated Blast Furnace Slag) were used in the different mixtures. The high strength
lightweight concretes exhibited excellent performance with virtually no degradation
during the standard freeze thaw testing. Prolonged exposure was needed to cause
significant damage under simulated arctic offshore conditions. Durability was found to be
a strong function of cumulative freezing and thawing cycles and moisture content, with
saturation of aggregates prior to test leading to premature failure
Durability of Concrete with Combined Graded Aggregate
The strength aspects of optimized aggregate gradation had been studied by
Shilstone [11]. The study by Shilstone was limited to only optimization of aggregate
gradation and not of cement content in concrete. The effect of optimized aggregate
90
gradation on the durability aspects of concrete had never been studied by any researchers
nor reported.
3.1.12 Concrete Plastic Shrinkage Reduction Potential
The origin of plastic shrinkage and plastic shrinkage induced cracks has been investigated
by many researchers during the last four decades, but no generally accepted theory could
be found in the literature. In order to estimate the risk of cracking of fresh concrete
exposed to certain climatic conditions, a complete understanding of the process of plastic
shrinkage is necessary [173].
Plastic shrinkage cracking results from a volume change of concrete while the
concrete is still in a semi fluid or plastic state. The volume change of concrete at a very
early stage can be divided into four distinct phases.
Phase I: Plastic settlement – Prior to drying, the spaces between particles of freshly
mixed concrete are completely water-filled. When concrete is placed, the solid particles
start to settle and water rises or bleeds, forming a layer of surface water. At this stage, the
concrete volume change is very small, and it is mainly caused by plastic settlement.
Phase II: Primary plastic shrinkage or bleeding contraction – Concrete surface water will
evaporate in hot, windy weather. When the rate of evaporation exceeds the rate of
bleeding (water rising to the surface), the concrete mixture will begin to shrink. This
shrinkage can occur before and/or during concrete setting, and is presumably attributed to
the pressure that develops in the capillary pores of concrete during evaporation. Under an
evaporative condition, water between the surfaces of solids (cement and aggregate
particles) in a plastic concrete forms a complicated system of menisci due to capillary
action. This generates capillary pressure within the concrete that, in turn, reduces the
distance between the concrete solid particles, causing the concrete to become compacted
or shrunken, this shrinkage, called primary plastic shrinkage, can reach a few thousands
of microstrains.
91
Phase III: Autogeneous shrinkage – As cement hydrates, hydration products form around
the cement particles and fill up the water-filled spaces between solid particles in concrete.
As hydration proceeds, the hydration products develop into a network that bonds all loose
aggregate particles together. Consequently, the role of capillary action becomes less
important. As the rate of cement hydration increases, plastic settlement and bleeding
contraction decrease, and autogeneous shrinkage (shrinkage without water loss) develops.
When concrete is in plastic state, the amount of autogeneous shrinkage is generally small,
less than a few hundred microstrain. The majority of autogeneous shrinkage takes place
after concrete setting.
Phase IV: Secondary plastic shrinkage – During this stage, the concrete begins to harden
and cement hydration slows. Plastic shrinkage tends to cease as concrete strength
develops.
Kejin Wang [173], stated that the most commonly observed form of plastic
shrinkage is often a combination of plastic settlement, bleeding contraction, and
autogeneous shrinkage. When the shrinkage is subjected to internal restraint, external
restraint, or both, tensile stress develops, and the concrete may crack.
In 1942 Swayse, M.A [174] defined plastic shrinkage as “a volumetric contraction
of cement paste (the magnitude of this contraction being of the order of 1 percent of the
absolute volume of the dry cement)” whereas today the ACI defines it as “shrinkage that
takes place before cement paste, mortar, grout, or concrete sets.” Plastic shrinkage
cracking is thus the cracking that develops primarily in the top surface of the freshly laid
(plastic) concrete due to this volumetric contraction of the cement paste which is
accelerated by loss of surface bleed water via evaporation.
Freshly placed concrete sometimes does not have sufficient time to develop
enough tensile strength to resist contraction stresses induced in capillary pores by rapid
evaporation; thus cracks can develop throughout the top surface of the concrete. These
cracks are normally parallel and only in the surface of the concrete; however, there can be
92
cases where they extend totally through the slab (aggravated by drying shrinkage) and
can also be random in appearance. It is interesting to note, however, that research by
Ravina and Shalon [175] in 1968 did indicate that cracking can still occur even when
evaporation is negligible (in particular when thermal strain exceeds concrete strain
capacity).
Plastic shrinkage cracks occur during the first few hours after casting concrete
while the material is still in a semi-fluid or plastic state. The study of plastic shrinkage
cracking is complicated because the material properties that determine whether such
cracks will form are time-dependent and change rapidly during the first few hours in the
life of the concrete. Such rapidly changing time-dependent properties include: the rate at
which water is lost from the concrete in response to evaporative conditions; the degree to
which the loss of water results in volume reduction; the consistency or stiffness of the
mix; and the development of the tensile stress and tensile strain capacity of the material.
While the material is undergoing shrinkage due to the loss of water, the concrete may be
sufficiently fluid to comply with the volume change and, thus, develop relatively low
tensile stresses. Alternately, the concrete may be so stiff as to resist the volume changes
and thus develop relatively high tensile stresses as compared with the tensile capacity of
the material at that time [176].
As an example of this interaction of material properties, it has been observed that
a very fluid mix (high water content), while having the potential for greater volumetric
shrinkage than a stiffer mix with lower water content, may in fact show little or no plastic
shrinkage cracking because the fluid concrete remained sufficiently mobile to allow it to
accommodate the volume change. Similarly, if the development of the tensile capacity of
the concrete is more rapid than the development of shrinkage stresses or strains, little or
no cracking may occur. Ravina and Shalon [175] noted less cracking in slabs cast in
direct sunlight than for similar slabs cast in the shade and based their explanation of this
observation on an acceleration in the rate of strength gain induced by thermal radiation.
The warming of the slab surface may also have caused expansion that offset the
shrinkage.
The shrinkage that is the root cause of these cracks is induced by the loss of
water. It is commonly held that plastic shrinkage cracking develops when the rate of
93
evaporation exceeds the rate at which bleed water is furnished to the surface and that
there is a high probability of the formation of plastic shrinkage cracks when the rate of
evaporation from the surface of the concrete is in excess of 0.975 kg of water/m2/hr (0.2
lb of water /ft2/hr).
The model proposed for the plastic shrinkage was based on the idea that the
capillary pressure in a saturated mixture exposed to drying is a function of the geometry
of the spaces between the solid particles at the surface and the difference between the
amount of evaporated water and the amount of water coming from inside the mixture. In
order to describe these quantities, as well as the geometry of the spaces between the
particles at the surface, the relationship between the capillary pressure and the amount of
evaporated water, had been introduced.
A qualitative verification of the model was made by showing that the
development of the capillary pressure in mixtures of non-reactive particles with water and
cement pastes depended on the following factors: 1. The rate of evaporation 2. The
geometry of the pores at the surface 3. The thickness of the sample 4. The modulus of
plastic shrinkage [177].
Plastic shrinkage cracking in mortar panels, simulating cracking in concrete slabs,
was investigated using the procedure developed by Kraai [177]. For the specific
conditions of the testing program, the incidence of plastic shrinkage cracking increased
with the paste volume fraction. It was also observed that the orientation and severity of
the cracks were influenced more strongly by the direction and speed of strikeoff
operations than for all other variables studied. While it was believed that some threshold
evaporation rate was necessary to initiate cracking, for the tests conducted there was no
direct correlation between the severity of the cracking and the rate of evaporation [177].
Conventional methods for preventing or reducing plastic shrinkage cracking are
directed at reducing the rate of evaporation from the surface of freshly cast concrete. This
is typically done through the use of fog sprays, windbreaks, and sunscreens, or
rescheduling the placement of concrete until environmental conditions are more
favorable. It appears likely, however, that under given evaporation conditions, additional
factors are influential in determining the extent and severity of plastic cracking. The
focus of this particular study has been to investigate the influence of mix proportions and
94
construction operations on the development of plastic shrinkage cracking in test
specimens cast under controlled environmental conditions.
Plastic shrinkage cracks may impair the serviceability, durability, or esthetics of a
concrete structure, and are therefore of economic significance in the concrete
construction industry. Such cracks may occur even when standard precautions have been
taken to prevent their formation [176].
Plastic shrinkage cracking is a constant source of concern in the concrete industry.
It causes anxiety between the concrete supplier and the client when cracks (albeit
hairline) are observed on a recently placed concrete surface. It also causes concern to the
designer as “long-term durability” comes into question. It is of particular concern in
countries such as Australia, New Zealand, the U.S.A., South Africa, and the Middle East,
where hot or windy conditions are experienced.
New formulas and nomographs are offered, such as ACI 305R-96 evaporation
monograph, thus assisting the industry to more easily calculate the evaporation of water
from a concrete surface and accordingly predict the possible onset of plastic shrinkage
cracking.
3.2 Task 2- Meet with the Technical Panel to review the research scope and work plan.
The P.I. met with the technical panel and reviewed about the scope of research
and discussed about the work plan. The following topics were discussed and satisfactory
solutions were agreed upon: trial mixes for optimum mixes, tests to be conducted,
selection of optimum mixes, tests to be done on the recommended optimum mixes. Dr
Ramakrishnan (P.I.) attended the technical panel meeting that was held in Pierre.
3.3 Task 3- Determine the extent of cracking in bridge decks by quantifying amount,
average width and type of cracking present on steel girder and pre-stressed girder bridges.
A survey of six steel girder and six pre-stressed girder bridges should be done. Three
bridges should be constructed with limestone aggregate and three with quartzite
aggregate for each bridge type surveyed.
95
BRIDGE INSPECTION
Bridges were inspected for the extent of existing cracking by visual observation.
A total of 13 bridges were inspected as a part of research work, 6 in the East River and 7
in the West River. The average width, length and area of the cracks in steel and
prestressed concrete girder bridges were recorded accurately during the inspection. The
following were the bridges selected for inspection.
East River Prestressed Concrete Girder:
1) Structure No. 08-080-112, SD 50 N over I 90; I 90 MRM 265.86; East Chamberlain
Interchange; 268.3’ x 40’; Brule County.
2) Structure No. 18-141-093, SD 37 Over City Street/ Railroad in Mitchell; MRM 74.5;
0.8 N of I 90 Loop East; 235’ x 52’; Davison County.
Steel Girder:
1) Structure No. 18-180-100, SD Over Jim River; MRM 302.93; Davison/ Hanson
County Line; 307.4’ x 40’.
2) Structure No. 09-126-149, SD 50 Over Crow Creek; MRM 219.03; 7.2 S of Jct SD 34;
268’ x 36’; Buffalo County.
3) Structure No. 50-020-141, I 90 Over SD 19 at Humbolt Interchange; MRM 379.66;
189’ x 32’; Minnehaha County.
4) Structure No. 50-020-142, I 90 Over SD 19 at Humbolt Interchange; MRM 379.66;
189’ x 32’; Minnehaha County.
West River Prestressed Concrete Girder:
1) Structure No. 10-103-367, US 212 Over the Belle Fourche River; MRM 14.10; 0.3 E
of Jct 85 at Belle Fourche; 496.1’ x 40’; Butte County.
2) Structure No. 47-215-363, SD 34 Over Belle Fourche River; MRM 56.57; 17.6 NE of
Jct SD 79 N; 371.9’ x 36’; Meade County.
3) Structure No. 24-248-119, SD 71 Over the Cheyenne River; MRM 24.5; 10 S of Hot
Springs; 418’ x 36’; Fall River County.
Steel Girder:
1) Structure No. 52-415-285, I 90 over Haines Avenue in Rapid City; MRM 58.3;
96
373’ x 40’; Pennington County.
2) Structure No. 52-415-286, I 90 over Haines Avenue in Rapid City; MRM 58.3;
373’ x 40’; Pennington County.
3) Structure No. 41-095-059, Over I 90,MRM 10.3; 334’ 9” x 40’; Lawrence County.
4) Structure No. 10-114-411, SD 34 Over Red Water River; MRM 12.81; 2.0 NW of
Lawrence Co Line; 307.8’ x 44’; Butte County.
During the inspection, the number of cracks on the top surface and bottom surface
of the bridge decks, and concrete barriers were counted and numbered. The lengths and
widths of the cracks were also noted. The width of the crack was measured accurately
using a crack comparator, which can measure crack widths between 0.08mm (0.003 in.)
and 1.25 mm (0.060 in.). All the visible cracks were noted. The length of the crack was
measured accurately using a twine thread.
The ACI Committee 224 report on cracking has recommended that the maximum
crack widths that can be tolerated are
Exposure Condition Maximum Allowable Crack Width
Dry Air 0.41 mm (0.016 in.)
Humidity, Moist Air, Soil 0.30 mm (0.012 in.)
Deicing Chemicals 0.18 mm (0.007 in.)
Sea Water 0.15 mm (0.006 in.)
Water Retaining Structures 0.10 mm (0.004 in.)
According to the ACI committee 224, maximum crack width that can be tolerated under
environmental conditions at the bridge surface (exposed to Deicing Chemicals) is 0.18
mm (0.007 in.). The current condition of bridge was determined by comparing the crack
widths with allowable widths proposed by the ACI committee to prevent intrusion of
deicing chemicals. Cracks with width less than 0.1 mm (0.004 in.) were called as hair line
cracks.
Cracks on the top surface were marked first and then the length, widths of cracks
were measured. The bottom surface of bridge deck and outside of barriers were accessed
with the help of a snooper. Cracks on bottom surface of the bridge deck and outer side of
barrier were measured for their lengths and widths. The cracks on bottom surface were
97
clearly visible due to the ingress of chloride salts and most of the cracks were full-length
cracks extending between the girders. The areas of cracks were calculated for barriers,
top surface, and bottom surface. Most of the cracks located on the barriers were hair line
cracks. The total numbers of cracks recorded in the bridges are given in Table 3.2 and the
total numbers of deleterious cracks are given in Table 3.3. The summaries of the area of
cracks for bridges are given in Tables 3.4 & 3.5. Table 3.4 gives the total area of cracks
present on the bridge; Table 3.5 gives the area of cracks that are more than 0.18 mm
(0.007 in.) in width, which are called as deleterious cracks, that cannot prevent the
intrusion of deicing chemicals. The bar charts for total number of cracks are shown in
Figures 3.14 & 3.15. The total area of cracks per 1000 Sq.ft area of bridge deck are
shown in Figures 3.16 & 3.17. The total area of the deleterious cracks per 1000 Sq.ft is
shown in Figures 3.18 & 3.19.
Table 3.2: Summary of the Total Number of Cracks in the Bridges
S.No Structure No. of Cracks No. of Cracks No. of Cracks Total No. Year of Number In the Kerbs In the Top In the Bottom of Cracks Construction
/Barriers Surface SurfaceEast River
1 09-126-149 295 239 356 890 September-982 18-141-093 328 345 552 1225 February-953 08-080-112 617 269 683 1569 December-914 50-020-141 96 200 213 509 June-865 50-020-142 192 150 204 546 June-866 18-180-100 411 81 302 794 May-86
West River
1 52-415-285 215 146 652 1013 July-992 52-415-286 749 221 633 1603 July-993 47-215-363 127 24 249 400 January-974 24-248-119 166 14 182 362 December-965 41-095-059 331 25 439 795 March-956 10-103-367 261 87 300 648 December-907 10-114-411 416 68 290 774 October-89
98
Table 3.3: Summary of the Total Number of Deleterious Cracks (Width >0.18 mm)
S.No Structure No. of Cracks No. of Cracks No. of Cracks Total No. Number In the In the In the of Cracks
Kerbs/Barriers Top Surface Bottom SurfaceEast River
1 09-126-149 0 3 39 422 18-141-093 0 73 53 1263 08-080-112 0 39 122 1614 50-020-141 0 17 48 655 50-020-142 0 4 26 306 18-180-100 0 50 52 102
West River
1 52-415-285 0 141 108 2492 52-415-286 0 220 51 2713 47-215-363 0 0 96 964 24-248-119 0 4 47 515 41-095-059 1 11 6 186 10-103-367 0 84 39 1237 10-114-411 0 62 26 88
Table 3.4: Summary of Total Area of Cracks Per 1000 Sq, ft
S.No Structure Area of Cracks Area of Cracks Total Area of Cracks Total Area Number In the Top Surface In the Bottom Surface of Bridge Deck
( ft2 ) ( ft2 ) ( ft2 ) ( ft2 )East River
1 09-126-149 0.050 0.100 0.150 96482 18-141-093 0.070 0.090 0.160 122203 08-080-112 0.080 0.180 0.260 107324 50-020-141 0.030 0.100 0.130 60485 50-020-142 0.040 0.090 0.130 60486 18-180-100 0.030 0.060 0.090 12296
West River
1 52-415-285 0.160 0.110 0.270 149202 52-415-286 0.360 0.100 0.460 149203 47-215-363 0.002 0.050 0.052 133884 24-248-119 0.001 0.040 0.041 150485 41-095-059 0.009 0.060 0.069 133906 10-103-367 0.080 0.040 0.120 198447 10-114-411 0.140 0.040 0.180 13543
99
Table 3.5: Summary of Total Area of Cracks (Width > 0.18 mm) Per 1000 Sq. ft
S.No Structure Area of Cracks Area of Cracks Total Area of Cracks Total Area Number In the Top Surface In the Bottom Surface of Bridge Deck
( ft2 ) ( ft2 ) ( ft2 ) ( ft2 )East River
1 09-126-149 0.010 0.030 0.040 96482 18-141-093 0.050 0.020 0.070 122203 08-080-112 0.020 0.050 0.070 107324 50-020-141 0.015 0.050 0.065 60485 50-020-142 0.003 0.030 0.033 60486 18-180-100 0.030 0.030 0.060 12296
West River
1 52-415-285 0.160 0.030 0.190 149202 52-415-286 0.360 0.020 0.380 149203 47-215-363 0.000 0.030 0.030 133884 24-248-119 0.000 0.030 0.030 150485 41-095-059 0.006 0.002 0.008 133906 10-103-367 0.080 0.008 0.088 198447 10-114-411 0.140 0.008 0.148 13543
Year of Construction
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Buffalo Davison Brule Minnehaha Minnehaha Davison
County
Num
ber
of C
rack
s
Dec 91
Feb 95
May 86Sep 98
Jun 86Jun 86
Figure 3.14: Total Number of Cracks in Bridges (East river)
100
Year of Construction
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Pennington Pennington Meade Fall River Lawrence Butte Butte
County
Num
ber
of C
rack
s
Dec 90
Jan 97 Dec 96
Jul 99
Jul 99
Mar 95 Oct 89
Figure 3.15: Total Number of Cracks in Bridges (West River)
It is assumed that all the east river bridge decks were built with quartzite
aggregate concrete and all west river bridge decks were built with limestone aggregate
concrete. The following conclusions could be drawn from the inspection: In the east river
region, the bridges that were constructed earlier had less number of cracks when
compared to new bridges. STR No. 18-180-100 (Davison County) and 50-020-141 and
142 (Minnehaha County) had lesser number of cracks than other bridges. They were
constructed in 1986 and are 16 years old. Among new bridges, STR No.09-126-149
(Buffalo County) had less number of cracks, but is 4 yrs old. The total area of cracks per
1000 sq.ft of bridge deck area were also less for older bridges, proving that older bridges
are in better condition than the new ones. In general the total area of deleterious cracks
per 1000 sq.ft of bridge deck area was also less for the older bridges, STR No. 50-020-
141 and 142 (Minnehaha County) and STR No. 18-18-100 (Davison County). STR No.
09-126-149 (Buffalo County) also had lesser areas of deleterious cracks, but are
comparatively younger in comparison to Minnehaha county and Davison county bridges.
In the west river region, the newly constructed bridges had the highest number of
cracks, STR No. 52-415-285 and 286 (Pennington County) which were constructed in
1999, had 1013 and 1603 cracks in the barriers, bottom surface and top surface. Some of
101
the newly constructed bridges, STR No. 24-248-119 (Fall River County), STR No. 47-
215-363 (Meade County) and STR No. 41-095-059 (Lawrence County) had lesser
number of cracks.
Year of Construction
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
Buffalo Davison Brule Minnehaha Minnehaha Davison
County
Tot
al A
rea
of C
rack
s Per
100
0 Sq
.ft
Dec 91
Feb 95
May 86
Sep 98Jun 86 Jun 86
Figure 3.16: Total Area of Cracks per 1000 Sq.ft (East River)
In west river also, in general the older bridges are in better condition when compared to
the new bridges. STR No. 47-215-363 (Meade County) and STR No. 24-248-119 (Fall
River County) which are 5 years old also had lesser number of cracks. The number of
cracks might increase with age and exposure to traffic. Of all the bridges, STR No. 24-
248-119 (Fall River County) had lesser area of cracks per 1000 sq.ft of bridge deck area,
and STR No. 10-103-367 (Butte County) and 10-114-411 (Butte County) were in better
condition as they had 111.5 cm2 2 (0.12 ft ) and 167.2 cm2 2 (0.18 ft ) area of cracks
respectively after 12 years of service. STR No. 41-095-059 (Lawrence County) (7 years)
had the least total area of deleterious cracks per 1000 sq.ft of bridge deck area. This
particular bridge was the only bridge built with polyolefin fiber reinforced concrete in the
bridge deck. As expected, the use of polyolefin fibers in the bridge deck had contributed
in minimizing the number as well as the area of deleterious cracks.
102
Year of Construction
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
Pennington Pennington Meade Fall River Lawrence Butte Butte
County
Tot
al A
rea
of C
rack
s per
100
0 Sq
.ft
Jan 97 Dec 96
Jul 99
Jul 99
Mar 95
Oct 89
Dec 90
Figure 3.17: Total Area of Cracks per 1000 Sq.ft (West River)
Year of Construction
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
Buffalo Davison Brule Minnehaha Minnehaha Davison
County
Tot
al A
rea
of D
elet
erio
us C
rack
s per
10
00 S
q.ft
Dec 91Feb 95 May 86Sep 98
Jun 86
Jun 86
Figure 3.18: Total Area of Deleterious Cracks per 1000 Sq.ft (East river)
103
Year of Construction
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
Pennington Pennington Meade Fall River Lawrence Butte Butte
County
Tot
al A
rea
of D
elet
erio
us C
rack
s per
10
00 S
q.ft
Dec 90Jan 97
Dec 96
Jul 99
Jul 99
Oct 89
Mar 95
Figure 3.19: Total Area of Deleterious Cracks per 1000 Sq.ft (West river)
The bar chart showing the comparison of steel and prestressed concrete girders are
shown in Figures 3.20 and 3.21. In the east river region, the steel girder bridges
performed better than the prestressed concrete girder bridges. The total areas of
deleterious cracks were less for the steel girder bridges, when compared to prestressed
concrete girder bridges. Steel girder bridges that are recently constructed (1998) had
almost the same area of deleterious cracks, when compared to the older bridges (1986). In
the west river region, the prestressed concrete girder bridges performed better than the
steel girder bridges. The total areas of deleterious cracks were less for the prestressed
concrete bridges, when compared to steel girder bridges. The prestressed concrete girder
bridges that were recently constructed (1997) had almost the same area of deleterious
cracks, when compared to the older bridges (1990).
In general, it can be stated that older bridges had comparatively lesser cracking in
comparison to the newly constructed bridges. The possible reasons may be the use of
high cement content and one size aggregate, which leads to higher shrinkage cracking in
bridge decks.
104
Year of Construction
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
Buffalo (Steel)
Davison (Prestressed
concrete)
Brule (Prestressed
concrete)
Minnehaha (Steel)
Minnehaha (Steel)
Davison (Steel)
County (Girder Type)
Tot
al A
rea
of D
elet
erio
us C
rack
s per
10
00 sq
.ft
Sep 98Jun 86 Jun 86 May 86Feb 95 Dec 91
Figure 3.20: Comparison of Steel and Prestressed Concrete Girder Bridges
for Total Area of Deleterious Cracks per 1000 sq.ft (East River)
The mix designs available for the bridges surveyed were obtained from the
SDDOT and are given in Table 3.6. For STR No. 10-103-367 (Butte County), STR No.
10-114-411 (Butte County) and 47-215-363 (Meade County), the mix designs data were
not available. They were assumed to be supplied by the nearest contractor in the region.
From the mix designs, the percentage of coarse aggregate and fine aggregate used was
found. Assuming that 25 mm (1 inch) coarse aggregate was used and blended with fine
aggregate, the combined aggregate gradation was determined for all the bridges. The
combined gradations were verified with the 0.45 power chart, Shilstone’s optimum mix,
USAF constructability chart and 8-18 method. It was found for all the mixes that the
combined gradation used was almost gap-graded.
The cement content used for the bridges was too high ranging between 391.6
kg/m3 (660 pcy) to 412.3 kg/m3 (695 pcy). It was found from the research conducted at
SDSM&T that by using optimum graded aggregates the cement content could be reduced
to 355.9 kg/m3 (600 pcy) without compromising the strength and durability aspects of
concrete. Higher cement content leads to more mortar paste and as a result higher
105
shrinkage cracks. The use of higher cement content and gap-grading of aggregates might
have led to increased shrinkage cracks. These cracks exposed to various temperatures and
traffic over a period of time have increased in length and width. The cracks can be
reduced by using the optimum mixes with well-graded aggregate proposed in this report.
Year of Construction
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
Pennington (Steel)
Pennington (Steel)
Meade (Prestressed
concrete)
Fall River (Prestressed
concrete)
Lawrence (Steel)
Butte (Prestressed
concrete)
Butte (Steel)
County (Girder Type)
Tot
al A
rea
of D
elet
erio
us C
rack
s per
10
00 S
q.ft
Dec 90
Jan 97 Dec 96
Jul 99
Jul 99
Oct 89
Mar 95
Figure 3.21: Comparison of Steel and Prestressed Concrete Girder Bridges for Total Area of Deleterious Cracks per 1000 sq.ft (West River) Details of Cracks and their location
A separate comprehensive report totaling more than 500 pages both in the
electronic format (C.D) and hard copy was submitted in September 2002 to the SDDOT
and the regional engineers in the East River and West River who had arranged for the
snoopers and traffic control during our inspection of the bridges. This report contains
scale drawings in which the cracks are mapped in the actual locations with each crack
given a number. Tables were included giving the crack number, the length, width at
different locations, the average width and area of each crack. The exact location of the
cracks in the barrier, the top surface, bottom surface of the bridge decks are shown in the
drawings. The procedure used for the inspection and a brief analysis are also included in
the report.
106
Table 3.6: Available Concrete Details for the Inspected Bridge Deck
S. No Structure County Water Cement Fly Ash Coarse Fine Air Slump 28 Day CompNumber Aggregate Aggregate Content Strength
pcy pcy pcy pcy pcy % in. psi
East River
1 09-126-149 Buffalo 261 660 1746 1151 6.5 3.0 63502 18-141-093 Davison 264 660 1769 1154 6.4 2.8 56373 08-080-112 Brule 261 561 124 1720 1135 6.2 3.4 59854 50-020-141 Minnehaha N.A. N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A5 50-020-142 Minnehaha N.A. N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A6 18-180-100 Davison 260 682 1629 1275 6.1 2.9 5703
West River
1 52-415-285 Pennington 272 670 1748 1179 N.A N.A N.A2 52-415-286 Pennington 272 670 1748 1179 N.A N.A N.A3 47-215-363 Meade 275 670 1748 1179 N.A N.A N.A4 24-248-119 Fall River 284 679 1724 1156 N.A N.A N.A5 41-095-059 Lawrence 310 570 125 1340 1340 5.2 3.1 58256 10-103-367 Butte 282 695 1690 1151 N.A N.A N.A7 10-114-411 Butte 282 695 1690 1151 N.A N.A N.A
* N.A. - Not Available
107
3.4 Task 4 - Determine gradations for starting points of mix designs using limestone,
quartzite, and granite coarse aggregates. The objective is to maximize the coarse
aggregate amount and size – up to 1.5”.
3.4.1 Blending of Quartzite Aggregates
Sieve Analysis was done for the various sizes of the aggregates to determine their
individual gradations. The fineness moduli of the aggregates were evaluated as per
ASTM C 136 and are given in Table 3.7. The Individual gradation plots of all the
aggregates are shown in Figures AQ1 to AQ11 (Appendix A). The aim was to obtain a
gradation that would satisfy as nearly as possible with 0.45 power chart. The best
possible blend with the available aggregate sizes that matched the target gradation was
obtained by trial and error.
The combined gradation was obtained by blending two coarse aggregate sizes
37.5 mm (1.5 inch), 19 mm (¾ inch) and natural sand in the proportion of 27.5%: 37.5%:
35% respectively. The coarseness and workability factors were evaluated and are given in
Table 3.8. This combined gradation satisfied the 0.45 power chart [shown in Figure
AQ25 (Appendix B)], which gave the maximum denser packing of aggregates. With the
selected gradation, it was possible to reduce the cement content, which in turn helped to
reduce the shrinkage cracks and permeability. The above respective percentages of two
sizes of aggregates and sand were weighed, blended together and then the sieve analysis
was done for the blended aggregate. It was observed that the experimental values and
theoretical values that were obtained from the 0.45 power chart were almost the same.
This gradation was taken as the optimum gradation for the quartzite aggregate.
After the optimum aggregate gradation was obtained using the 0.45 power chart,
it was also compared with the optimum mix gradation proposed by Shilstone. It was
found that the optimum aggregate gradation obtained using the 0.45 power chart was
almost the same as the optimum mix gradation proposed by Shilstone (shown in Figure
AQ28). The same gradation was then compared with the USAF constructability chart. It
was also found that the optimum aggregate gradation was in the well-graded zone in the
constructability chart (shown in Figure AQ31). The optimum gradation was then
compared with the 8-18 Method. The blended aggregate percentage retained between
108
sieves was almost well within the upper and lower limits of 8-18 Method (shown in
Figure AQ34).
Table 3.7: Summary of Finesse Moduli of the Quartzite Aggregates
S.no AverageTrial I Trial II Trial III
1 2.75 2.68 2.64 2.69
2 2.85 2.84 2.85
3 2.42 2.19 2.90 2.50
4 2.17 2.31 2.24
5 7.95 7.95
6 7.10 7.10
7 6.70 6.70
8 6.47 6.47
9 5.32 5.32
10 5.30 5.30
11 5.29 5.29
7/16" Spencer Quarry
3/8" Spencer Quarry
Fineness Modulus
Medium Sand: Birdsall, Wasta
Fine Sand: Opperman, Winner Area
3/4" Washed Spencer Quarry
Description(Source)
Coarse Sand: Fischer, Spearfish
9/16" Spencer Quarry
# 4 Spencer Quarry
1 1/2" Spencer Quarry
1" Spencer Quarry
3/4" Unwashed Spencer Quarry
Table 3.8: Combined Aggregate Gradation for Quartzite Aggregate
Sieve Size (in)
Sieve Size (mm)
% Passing % Batch % Passing % Batch % Passing%
BatchUpper Limit
Lower Limit
1.5 37.5 97.67 26.86 100.00 37.50 100.00 35.00 99 100 0 10.0 0.01 25 39.00 10.73 100.00 37.50 100.00 35.00 83 83 16 18.0 0.03/4 19 4.67 1.28 100.00 37.50 100.00 35.00 74 74 9 18.0 8.01/2 12.5 0.40 0.11 82.41 30.90 100.00 35.00 66 61 8 18.0 8.03/8 9.5 0.40 0.11 45.26 16.97 100.00 35.00 52 54 14 18.0 8.0
No. 4 4.75 0.36 0.10 4.44 1.66 99.28 34.75 37 39 16 18.0 8.0No. 8 2.36 0.35 0.10 0.96 0.36 88.89 31.11 32 29 5 18.0 8.0No. 16 1.18 0.33 0.09 0.71 0.26 69.39 24.29 25 21 7 18.0 8.0No. 30 0.6 0.31 0.09 0.63 0.23 43.30 15.15 15 16 9 18.0 8.0No. 50 0.3 0.28 0.08 0.55 0.21 19.24 6.73 7 11 8 10.5 4.0No. 100 0.15 0.23 0.06 0.43 0.16 4.08 1.43 2 8 5 3.0 0.0
48is 5.64
68
is 5.4870
32
Coarseness Factor =
Workability Factor =
Aggregate # 1 (1.5 in.)
Percentage: 27.5%
Aggregate # 2 (3/4 W)
Percentage: 37.5% 8 - 18 Method
% Retained Above 9.5 mm Sieve =
% Retained Above # 8 Sieve =
Aggregate # 3 (Birdsall Sand)
Percentage 35%Blend % Passing
Target %
Passing
% Retained between sieves
The Fineness Modulus of the blended aggregate
The Fineness Modulus of the Target gradation
109
3.4.2 Blending of Limestone Aggregates
Sieve Analysis was done for the various sizes of the aggregates sent by the Hills
Materials Company, to determine their individual gradations. The fineness moduli of the
aggregates were evaluated as per ASTM C 136 and are given in Table 3.9. The Individual
gradation plots of all the aggregates are shown in Figures AL12 to AL20 (Appendix A).
The aim was to obtain an optimum blend whose gradation would satisfy as nearly as
possible with 0.45 power chart. For practical considerations, in order to make it easier for
aggregate suppliers, only two standard sizes (1.5” and ¾” maximum sizes) of coarse
aggregates were selected for blending. Therefore it is realized that an exact fitting with
the 0.45 power chart would not be possible to achieve.
Based on the individual gradation results of these sample aggregates, two different
sizes of the aggregate were blended with Birdsall Cresteon sand, in varying proportions
of the aggregate and sand to obtain an optimum blend. The best possible blend (optimum
blend) with the available aggregate sizes that matched the target gradation was obtained
by trial and error. Sieve Analysis was done again on the optimum blend to get combined
gradation. After various analysis and numerous comparisons two different blends - 30%
of 1.5 inch aggregate, 35% of ¾ inch aggregate, 35% of Birdsall sand and 23% of 1.5
inch aggregate, 42% of ¾ inch aggregate, 35% of Birdsall sand were found to be fitting
and matching the standard required requirements and charts i.e. when compared with the
0.45 Power Chart, Shilstone Method and U.S. Air Force Method. The combined
aggregate gradation values for both the above blends are given in Table 3.10 and
3.11.The graphical comparison plots of these two blends with the 0.45 Power Chart,
Table 3.9 Summary of Fineness Moduli Results.
S.No Description Fineness Modulus Average
Source Trial I Trial II Trial III1 Fine Sand, Birdsall Creston 2.76 2.76 - 2.762 1 1/2 inch Aggregate(Initially Supplied),Hills Materials 7.92 7.93 - 7.923 3/4 inch Aggregate(Initially Supplied),Hills Materials 6.55 6.78 6.65 6.664 1 1/2 inch Aggregate(New Improved),Hills Materials 7.64 7.63 - 7.635 1 1/2 inch Aggregate(Finally Supplied),Hills Materials 7.72 7.73 - 7.726 1.0 inch Aggregate(Finally Supplied),Hills Materials 7.00 7.00 - 7.007 3/4 inch Aggregate(Finally Supplied),Hills Materials 6.66 6.71 6.28 6.55
110
Table 3.10 Combined Aggregate Gradation of Blend I (30%, 35%, and 35%) Sieve Size (in)
Sieve Size
(mm)
% Passing%
Batch%
Passing%
Batch%
Passing%
Batch1.5 37.5 100.00 30.00 100.00 35.00 100.00 35.00 100 100 0 10.0 0.01 25 61.65 18.50 100.00 35.00 100.00 35.00 88 83 12 18.0 0.0
3/4 19 19.25 5.78 98.02 34.31 100.00 35.00 75 74 13 18.0 8.01/2 12.5 3.35 1.01 61.54 21.54 100.00 35.00 58 61 18 18.0 8.03/8 9.5 2.07 0.62 34.02 11.91 100.00 35.00 48 54 10 18.0 8.0
No. 4 4.75 1.26 0.38 3.46 1.21 99.28 34.75 36 39 11 18.0 8.0No. 8 2.36 1.11 0.33 1.98 0.69 88.89 31.11 32 29 4 18.0 8.0No. 16 1.18 1.05 0.32 1.94 0.68 69.39 24.29 25 21 7 18.0 8.0No. 30 0.6 0.99 0.30 1.92 0.67 43.30 15.15 16 16 9 18.0 8.0No. 50 0.3 0.94 0.28 1.90 0.67 19.24 6.73 8 11 8 10.5 4.0No. 100 0.15 0.86 0.26 1.86 0.65 4.08 1.43 2 8 5 3.0 0.0
52
68
77
32Workability Factor =
Upper Limit
Lower Limit
Aggregate # 1 (1.5 in.)
Percentage: 30.0%
Aggregate # 2 (3/4 in.)
Percentage:
Aggregate # 3 (Birdsall Sand)
Percentage Blend %
Passing
Target %
Passing
% Retained between
sieves
% Retained Above 9.5 mm Sieve =
% Retained Above # 8 Sieve =
Coarseness Factor =
Table 3.11 Combined Aggregate Gradation of Blend II (23%, 42%, and 35%)
Sieve Size (in)
Sieve Size
(mm)
2 0 0 01.5 37.5 100.00 23.00 100.00 42.00 100.00 35.00 100 100 0 10.0 0.01 25 61.65 14.18 100.00 42.00 100.00 35.00 91 83 9 18.0 0.03/4 19 19.25 4.43 98.02 41.17 100.00 35.00 81 74 11 18.0 8.01/2 12.5 3.35 0.77 61.54 25.85 100.00 35.00 62 61 19 18.0 8.03/8 9.5 2.07 0.48 34.02 14.29 100.00 35.00 50 54 12 18.0 8.0
No. 4 4.75 1.26 0.29 3.46 1.45 99.28 34.75 36 39 13 18.0 8.0No. 8 2.36 1.11 0.26 1.98 0.83 88.89 31.11 32 29 4 18.0 8.0No. 16 1.18 1.05 0.24 1.94 0.81 69.39 24.29 25 21 7 18.0 8.0No. 30 0.6 0.99 0.23 1.92 0.81 43.30 15.15 16 16 9 18.0 8.0No. 50 0.3 0.94 0.22 1.90 0.80 19.24 6.73 8 11 8 10.5 4.0No. 100 0.15 0.86 0.20 1.86 0.78 4.08 1.43 2 8 5 3.0 0.0
50
68
74
32
% Retained Above 9.5 mm Sieve =
% Retained Above # 8 Sieve =
Coarseness Factor =
Workability Factor =
Upper Limit
Lower Limit
Aggregate # 1 (1.5 in.)
Percentage: 23.0%
Aggregate # 2 (3/4 in.)
Percentage: 42.0%
gg g(Birdsall Sand)
Percentage 35.0%
Blend %
Passing
Target %
Passing
Retained between sieves
111
Shilstone Method and the 8-18 method are shown in Figures AL26,AL29,AL32,AL35
and AL37-AL40 (Appendix A). The blended aggregate percentage retained between
sieves was almost well within the upper and lower limits of 8-18 Method. The gradation
for the two respective blends when compared to the USAF Constructability Chart was
found that these optimum gradations were in the well graded and coarse gap graded zone.
3.4.3 Blending of Granite Aggregates
Sieve Analysis was done for the aggregates supplied to determine their individual
gradations. The fineness moduli of the aggregates were evaluated as per ASTM C 136.
The Individual gradation plots of all the aggregates are shown in Figures AG21 to AG24
(Appendix A). The aim was to obtain a gradation that would satisfy as nearly as possible
with 0.45 power chart. The best possible blend with the available aggregate sizes that
matched the target gradation was obtained by trial and error.
The combined gradation was obtained by blending two coarse aggregate sizes
37.5 mm (1.5 inch), 19 mm (¾ inch) and natural sand in the proportion of 35.0%: 30.0%:
35% respectively. The coarseness and workability factors were evaluated and are given in
Table 3.12. This combined gradation satisfied the 0.45 power chart [shown in Figure
AG27 (Appendix A)], which gave the maximum denser packing of aggregates. With the
selected gradation, it was possible to reduce the cement content, which in turn helped to
reduce the shrinkage cracks and permeability. The above respective percentages of two
sizes of aggregates and sand were weighed, blended together and then the sieve analysis
was done for the blended aggregate. It was observed that the experimental values and
theoretical values that were obtained from the 0.45 power chart were almost the same.
This gradation was taken as the optimum gradation for the granite aggregate.
After the optimum aggregate gradation was obtained using the 0.45 power chart,
it was also compared with the optimum mix gradation proposed by Shilstone. It was
found that the optimum aggregate gradation obtained using the 0.45 power chart was
almost the same as the optimum mix gradation proposed by Shilstone (shown in Figure
AG30). The same gradation was then compared with the USAF constructability chart. It
112
was also found that the optimum aggregate gradation was in the well-graded zone in the
constructability chart (shown in Figure AG33). The optimum gradation was then
compared with the 8-18 Method. The blended aggregate percentage retained between
sieves was almost well within the upper and lower limits of 8-18 Method (shown in
Figure AG36).
The supplied coarse aggregates were crushed aggregates and there was a greater
variation in the shape and texture of the aggregates. It was more difficult to get the exact
compatibility with the 0.45 power chart, Shilstone method, USAF method and 8-18
method. After number of trial combinations the best blend had coarseness factor of 51
and a workability factor of 32
Table 3.12: Combined Aggregate Gradation for Granite Aggregate
Sieve Size (in)
Sieve Size (mm)
% Passing % Batch % Passing%
Batch % Passing%
Batch1.5 37.5 100.00 35.00 100.00 30.00 100.00 35.00 100 100 0 10.0 0.01 25 99.01 34.65 100.00 30.00 100.00 35.00 100 83 0 18.0 0.03/4 19 85.27 29.85 100.00 30.00 100.00 35.00 95 74 5 18.0 8.01/2 12.5 42.07 14.72 97.52 29.26 100.00 35.00 79 61 16 18.0 8.03/8 9.5 20.49 7.17 76.54 22.96 100.00 35.00 65 54 14 18.0 8.0
No. 4 4.75 1.19 0.42 10.90 3.27 99.28 34.75 38 39 27 18.0 8.0No. 8 2.36 0.66 0.23 2.40 0.72 88.89 31.11 32 29 6 18.0 8.0No. 16 1.18 0.61 0.21 1.78 0.53 69.39 24.29 25 21 7 18.0 8.0No. 30 0.6 0.57 0.20 1.56 0.47 43.30 15.15 16 16 9 18.0 8.0No. 50 0.3 0.53 0.19 1.40 0.42 19.24 6.73 7 11 8 10.5 4.0No. 100 0.15 0.47 0.17 1.20 0.36 4.08 1.43 2 8 5 3.0 0.0
34.87
67.94
5132Workability Factor =
Upper Limit
Lower Limit
Aggregate # 1 (1.5 in.) Percentage: 35.0%
Aggregate # 3 (Birdsall Sand)
Percentage 35.0%Blend % Passing
Target % Passing
% Retained between sieves
Aggregate # 2 (3/4 in.) Percentage:
30.0%
% Retained Above 9.5 mm Sieve =
% Retained Above # 8 Sieve =
Coarseness Factor =
113
3.5 Task 5 - Develop a well-graded aggregate gradation to minimize cement past content.
Quartzite Aggregate
Using the optimized gradations, trial mixes were conducted to minimize cement
paste content without significantly altering the strength, workability and finishability
requirements specified by SDDOT.
Details of Trial Mixes:
A Total of 15 trial mixes were made, 5 control mixes using the standard aggregate
gradation with 25 mm (1 in) maximum size aggregate and medium sand, 5 optimized
aggregate proportions blending 37.5 mm (1.5 in) and 19 mm (¾ in) aggregates and 5
optimized aggregate proportions with fly ash. Two cement contents (655 and 600 pcy), 4
water to cement ratios (0.40, 0.42, 0.43 and 0.45) and four different quantities of air
entraining agent were tried. Two different fly ash contents (25% and 20% by weight of
cement) were also tried. The mix designations used are given in Table 3.13 and the
mixture proportions are given in Table 3.14.
The fresh concrete properties (air content and slump) are given Table 3.15. The
compressive strengths at 1, 3,7,14 and 28 days are also compared in Table 3.15. Strength
developments are shown in Figures 3.22 to 3.26.
All the mixes had satisfactory workability and finishability. However mixes with
fly ash had lower air contents, lower slump, better finishability and significantly higher
compressive strengths. Even though the slumps were lower, the workability was the same
as control concrete. In the mixes with fly ash the air content and the slump can be
increased either by increasing the w/(c+f) ratio slightly, which would reduce the
compressive strength values equal to the control concrete strengths at initial ages up to 28
days and then will be higher, or by adding a small quantity of medium water reducer or
superplasticizer. The addition of appropriate quantity of water reducer will increase the
slump and consequently the air content without reducing the strength. Because these are
trial mixes, the air contents varied and most of them were lower than the specified 5%
minimum. In the final selected mixes the air contents were controlled so that they will be
within the specified limit.
114
The optimized mix with reduced cement paste (about 10 percent reduction in
cement content) OQB42 R, had an air content of 5.8 percent and 76 mm (3 in) slump,
which are the required values. The compressive strengths were almost the same as that of
the control concrete. Therefore this mix was selected for further testing. The mixture
proportion for the selected mix is shown in Table 3.16. It is expected that, it would
enhance the desirable hardened concrete properties such as low drying shrinkage, lower
creep and higher durability, particularly when 20 percent of cement by weight is replaced
with 25% fly ash. The 20 percent replacement is selected based on recommendations
made in the recently completed project SD 00- 06, Determination of Optimized Fly Ash
Content in Bridge Deck and Bridge Deck Overlay Concrete.
Table 3.13: Mixture Designations
Mix ID Description
CQB45 Control Quartzite Bridge Deck ConcreteOQB45 Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with No Fly Ash
OQFB45 Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly AshWater-cement ratio 0.45
CQB45A Control Quartzite Bridge Deck CocreteOQB45A Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with No Fly Ash
OQFB45A Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly AshWater-cement ratio 0.45
CQB40 Control Quartzite Bridge Deck ConcreteOQB40 Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with out Fly Ash
OQFB40 Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash Water-cement ratio 0.40
CQB43 Control Quartzite Bridge Deck ConcreteOQB43 Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with out Fly Ash
OQFB43 Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash Water-cement ratio 0.43
CQB42 Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete OQB42 R Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with out Fly Ash
(Reduced Cement) OQFB42 R Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash
(Reduced Cement)Water-cement ratio 0.42
115
Table 3.14: Mixture Proportions for Trial Mixes of Bridge Deck Concretes with Quartzite Aggregate
Fly Ash Cement Fine Fly Ash Air Water w/c w/(c+f)1.5" Max 1" Max 3/4" Max Aggregate Entraining
Size Size Size Agent % pcy pcy pcy pcy pcy pcy *A pcy % %
CQB45 0 655 0 1725 0 1100 0 1.00 295 0.45 0.45OQB45 0 655 777 0 1060 989 0 1.00 295 0.45 0.45
OQFB45 * 25 491 777 0 1060 989 197 1.00 221 0.45 0.32
CQB45 A 0 655 0 1725 0 1100 0 1.25 295 0.45 0.45OQB45 A 0 655 777 0 1060 989 0 1.25 295 0.45 0.45
OQFB45 A * 25 491 777 0 1060 989 197 3.00 221 0.45 0.32
CQB40 0 655 0 1725 0 1100 0 1.50 262 0.40 0.40OQB40 0 655 777 0 1060 989 0 1.50 262 0.40 0.40
OQFB40 * 25 491 777 0 1060 989 197 2.00 197 0.40 0.29
CQB43 0 655 0 1725 0 1100 0 1.50 282 0.43 0.43OQB43 0 655 777 0 1060 989 0 1.50 282 0.43 0.43
OQFB43 ** 20 524 777 0 1060 989 164 2.00 164 0.43 0.33
CQB42 0 655 0 1725 0 1100 0 1.50 275 0.42 0.42OQB42 R 0 600 777 0 1060 989 0 1.50 252 0.42 0.42
OQFB42 R ** 20 480 777 0 1060 989 150 2.50 202 0.42 0.32
* ** *A pcy w/c
w/(c+f) 1 oz
Percent by weight of cement replaced by Fly Ash, Volume correction factor of 1.20 Percent by weight of cement replaced by Fly Ash, Volume correction factor of 1.25 Ounces per 100 lb of cementPounds per cubic yard water-cement ratio water-cementitious ratio 29.57 ml
Mix ID Coarse AggregateMixture Proportions
116
Table 3.15: Comparison of Compressive Strength of Trial Mixes of Bridge Deck Concretes with Quartzite Aggregate
Mix Date Mix ID Air Content Slump% in 1 Day 3 Day 7 Day 14 Day 28 Day
9/10/2002w/c = 0.45Air = 1 oz CQB45 4.0 4 1/8 2237 3185 3934 4908 5023Air = 1 oz OQB45 4.0 2 13/16 2290 3208 4038 4968 5039Air = 1 oz OQFB45 2.6 1/2 3224 4713 5362 5869 6008
9/17/2002w/c = 0.45Air = 1.25 oz CQB45 A 5.8 3 5/8 1901 3036 3898 4271Air = 1.25 oz OQB45 A 6.0 3 5/16 1671 2917 3614 3915Air = 1.5 oz OQFB45 A 3.0 5/8 2661 4314 5255 5355
9/12/2002w/c = 0.40Air = 1.5 oz CQB40 3.8 2 1/16 2604 4034 4299 5005 5605Air = 1.5 oz OQB40 4.2 2 3/8 2378 3663 4503 5102 5649Air = 2.5 oz OQFB40 2.6 1/4 3127 4460 5382 5930 6154
9/21/2002w/c = 0.43Air = 1.5 oz CQB43 6.4 4 1/16 1994 3091 3794 4052Air = 1.5 oz OQB43 6.0 6 1996 3052 3564 4057Air = 2.0 oz OQFB43 3.6 13/16 2697 4023 4506 5308
9/27/2002w/c = 0.42Air = 1.5 oz CQB42 5.2 2 11/16 2049 3319 3976Air = 1.5 oz OQB42 R 5.8 3 1750 2927 3604Air = 2.5 oz OQFB42 R 3.2 5/16 2598 4161 5050
Air Air Entraining Agent per 100 lb of CementCQB Control QuartziteOQB Optimum Quartzite with No Fly AshOQFB Optimum Quartzite with Fly Ash
Average Compressive Strength (psi)
117
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
1 Day 3 Day 7 Day 14 Day 28 Day
Age (in Days)
Com
pres
sive
Str
engt
h (p
si)
CQBOQBOQFB
Figure 3.22: Comparison of Compressive Strength of Bridge Deck Concretes with
Quartzite Aggregate (Trial Mix w/c – 0.45)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
1 Day 3 Day 7 Day 14 Day 28 Day
Age (in Days)
Com
pres
sive
Str
engt
h (p
si)
CQB45 AOQBROQFBR
Figure 3.23: Comparison of Compressive Strength of Bridge Deck Concretes with
Quartzite Aggregate (Trial Mix w/c – 0.45 repeat)
118
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
1 Day 3 Day 7 Day 14 Day 28 Day
Age (in Days)
Com
pres
sive
Str
engt
h (p
si)
CQB43OQB43OQFB43
Figure 3.24: Comparison of Compressive Strength of Bridge Deck Concretes with
Quartzite Aggregate (Trial Mix w/c – 0.43)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
1 Day 3 Day 7 Day 14 Day 28 Day
Age (in Days)
Com
pres
sive
Str
engt
h (p
si)
CQB42OQB42OQFB42
Figure 3.25: Comparison of Compressive Strength of Bridge Deck Concretes with
Quartzite Aggregate (Trial Mix w/c – 0.42)
119
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
1 Day 3 Day 7 Day 14 Day 28 Day
Age ( in Days)
Com
pres
sive
Str
engt
h (p
si)
CQBOQBOQFB
Figure 3.26: Comparison of Compressive Strength of Bridge Deck Concretes with
Quartzite Aggregate (Trial Mix w/c – 0.4) Table 3.16: Mixture Proportions for Bridge Deck Concretes with Quartzite Aggregate Ingredient CQB OQB OQFB
Cement (pcy) 655 590 471.6Fly Ash (pcy) 0 0 147.4Coarse Aggregate (pcy) 1.5" 0 776.9 776.9
1.0" 1725 0 03/4" 0 1059.4 1059.4
Fine Aggregate (pcy) 1100 988.8 988.8Water (pcy) 275.1 247.6 221.7W/C Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.47W/CM Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.36
SI Unit converstion Factorspcy-pounds per cubic yard1pcy- 0.593 kg/m3
1 oz.- 29.57 ml1 lb.- 0.4536 kg Note:
1. Appropriate quantity of air entraining agent should be used to obtain the required air content.
2. Whenever required, an appropriate quantity of water reducing agent (either mid range or
high range) should be used to achieve the specified slump.
120
Limestone Aggregate
A similar procedure as was used for quartzite aggregate was used to minimize
cement paste content without significantly altering the strength, workability and
finishability requirements specified by SDDOT. By analyzing the trial mix results, the
following optimized aggregate gradation, mixture proportions and fly ash requirements
given in Table 3.17 were selected to obtain the optimum possible cement reduction.
Table 3.17: Mixture Proportions for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate
Note: propriate quantity of air entraining agent should be used to obtain the required
2. Whenever required, an appropriate quantity of water reducing agent (either mid
ranite Aggregate
sing the optimized aggregate gradations, and a similar procedure was used (as
for qua
Ingredient CLB OLB OLFB
Cement (pcy) 655.0 589.5 471.6Fly ash (pcy) 0.0 0.0 147.4Coarse Aggregate (pcy) 1.5" 0.0 847.5 847.5
1.0" 1725.0 0.0 0.03/4" 0.0 988.8 988.8
Fine Aggregate (pcy) 1100.0 988.8 988.8Water (pcy) 275.1 247.6 221.7W/C Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.47W/CM Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.36
SI Unit Conversion factorspcy - pounds per cubic yard1 pcy - 0.593 kg/m3
1 oz. - 29.57 ml1 lb - 0.4536 kg
1. Apair content.
range or high range) should be used to achieve the specified slump.
G
U
rtzite and limestone aggregate), to obtain the optimum possible cement reduction
and to minimize cement paste content without significantly altering the strength,
workability and finishability requirements specified by SDDOT. By analyzing the trial
121
mix results, the optimized aggregate gradation, mixture proportions and fly ash
requirements given in Table 3.18 are recommended.
For the three aggregate types with the same 10% reduction in cement content was
achieve
able 3.18: Mixture Proportions for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate
propriate quantity of air entraining agent should be used to obtain the required
ed, an appropriate quantity of water reducing agent (either mid
.6 Task 6
d, without significantly changing the strength, workability and finishability
requirements specified by SDDOT.
T
Note: 1. Ap
air content. 2. Whenever requir
range or high range) should be used to achieve the specified slump.
3 - Obtain panel approval of the proposed gradation before conducting mix
A technical panel meeting was held in Pierre and the P.I. (Ramakrishnan)
particip
Fly Ash (pcy)Coarse Aggregate (pcy) 1.5"
1" 3/4"
Fine Aggregate (pcy)Water (pcy)W/C RatioW/CM Ratio
SI Unit Conversion Factorspcy - Pounds per cubic yard 1 oz. - 29.57 ml1 pcy - 0.593 kg/m3 1 lb - 0.4536 kg
988.8221.80.470.36
147.5988.8
0.0847.5
0.42
988.8247.6
0.42
1100.0275.10.42 0.42
0.0988.8
0.0847.5
0.00.0
1725.00.0
655.0 590.0 472.0Cement (pcy)
Ingredient CGB OGB OGFB
designs.
ated in it. At this meeting the developed well-graded aggregate gradations have
been submitted and the details of the tasks that related to the construction portion of the
project were discussed. Approval was obtained for the developed well-graded aggregate
gradation and the selected mix proportions.
122
3.7 Task 7 - Develop mix designs using limestone, quartzite, and granite coarse
aggregates. Each coarse aggregate will be tested with coarse, medium and fine sand.
Additional mix designs will include Class F fly ash as indicated in the following table.
South Dakota standard mix designs for each coarse aggregate should be used as a control.
In Task 4 the analysis found out that medium sand had the most suitable gradation
for obtaining the optimized blended aggregate which satisfied the 0.45 Power Chart
Method, Shilstone Method, U.S.A.F Constructability Chart and 8-18 Method. Mix
designs were developed for bridge deck concrete with the three different types (Quartzite,
Limestone and Granite) aggregates and the mixes were evaluated for fresh and hardened
concrete properties.
The fresh concrete properties evaluated were Slump (ASTM C143), Air Content
(ASTM C231), Concrete Temperature (ASTM C1064) and the Hardened concrete
properties evaluated were Compressive strength(ASTM C39) and Static Modulus(ASTM
C469). The results are given in Chapter 4. The finally selected optimum mixture
proportions are given in Task 5.
3.7.1 Quartzite Aggregate
Mixture designation for trial mixes for Bridge Deck concrete with Quartzite
aggregates are shown in Table AQ1 and the actual mix designations are shown in Table
AQ4. Design mix proportions for trial mixes of Bridge Deck concrete with Quartzite
aggregates are shown in Table AQ7 and for the actual mixes are shown in Table AQ10.
3.7.2 Limestone Aggregate
Mixture designation for trial mixes for Bridge Deck concrete with Limestone
aggregates are shown in Table AL2 and the actual mix designations are shown in Table
AL5. Design mix proportions for trial mixes of Bridge Deck concrete with Limestone
aggregates are shown in Table AL8 and for the actual mixes are shown in Table AL11.
123
3.7.3 Granite Aggregate
Mixture designation for trial mixes for Bridge Deck concrete with Granite
aggregates are shown in Table AG3 and the actual mixes designations are shown in Table
AG6. Design mix proportions for trial mixes of Bridge Deck concrete with Granite
aggregates are shown in Table AG9 and for the actual mixes are shown in Table AG12.
Notes 1. Appropriate amount of air-entraining agent was used to obtain the specified air
content of 6.25±1.25%. Since the air content depends on various factors such as
the type of cement, the ambient temperature, the concrete temperature, humidity,
the slump required and total quantity of concrete mixed in the drum, a specific
accurate amount cannot be stated.
2. For the fly ash concrete, normally the addition of water reducer would be
required. However the amount to be added depends on the slump required, the
concrete temperature, humidity, air content, type of cement, and the total quantity
of the concrete mixed in the drum.
3. Therefore it should be decided by trial mixes in the field about how much air
entraining agent and how much water reducer should be used to obtain the
required air content and slump.
Task 8 3.8 - Conduct performance tests on hardened concrete for laboratory mix
combinations and on the collected field samples for the structural concrete. Performance
tests should include, but not be limited to, permeability, freeze thaw durability, drying
shrinkage, compressive strength, and unit weight.
Performance tests were conducted on both fresh and hardened concretes.
Appropriate ASTM, ACI and AASHTO standard test methods were used to determine:
Slump (ASTM C143) Rapid chloride permeability
(ASTM C1202 and AASHTO T277)
Vebe Time Compressive strength (ASTM C39)
124
Air Content (ASTM C231) Modulus of elasticity (ASTM C469)
Unit weight (ASTM C138) &Yield Flexural strength (Modulus of
Rupture – ASTM C78)
Concrete temperature (ASTM C1064) Alkali Aggregate Reactivity
Finishibility (By Observation) (ASTM C1260)
Drying Shrinkage (ASTM C157) Sulfate Resistance (ASTM C1012)
Freeze Thaw Resistance – ASTM C666 Creep and Shrinkage (ASTM C512)
Plastic Shrinkage Cracking Potential Initial & Final Setting Times (ASTM C403)
For all the three types of concretes made respectively with three types of coarse
aggregates, performance tests were done on both the fresh and hardened concretes and
are discussed in Chapter 4.0.
The field work (construction of the bridge decks using the recommended
optimized aggregate gradation mixes) has been postponed from summer 2002 to summer
2004, therefore the performance tests on field samples will be conducted once the field
work commences. The test results of the field samples and a comparison of the results
with the lab samples will be made and will be reported in a separate report.
3.9 Task 9 - Provide mix design results for inclusion by Construction Change Order in
bridges being constructed during the 2002 construction season by May 1, 2002.
The recommended mix proportions with and without fly ash which incorporated
the optimized aggregate (limestone) gradation was submitted to the technical panel for
inclusion in the construction change order in bridges that is being planned to be
constructed during the 2004 construction session. The mix proportions for bridge deck
concrete with limestone aggregate are given below. Since the panel had identified bridges
to be constructed in the Rapid City region mix proportions of concrete made with
limestone aggregate (which is locally available in Rapid City) were recommended.
The weight proportions are proportionally adjusted based on the specific gravities
of the available materials to obtain the required one cubic yard volume.
125
Table 3.19: Recommended Mixture Proportions for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate
Ingredient
Volume Proportions
(ft3)
Volume Proportions
(ft3)
Volume Proportions
(ft3)Cement 667.00 pcy 3.37 619.00 pcy 3.13 496.00 pcy 2.51Fly Ash 0.00 pcy 0.00 0.00 pcy 0.00 155.00 pcy 0.99Coarse Aggregate 1.5" 0.00 pcy 0.00 893.00 pcy 5.34 898.00 pcy 5.37
1.0" 1759.00 pcy 10.52 0.00 pcy 0.00 0.00 pcy 0.003/4" 0.00 pcy 0.00 1043.00 pcy 6.24 1045.00 pcy 6.25
Fine Aggregate 1122.00 pcy 6.86 1043.00 pcy 6.38 1045.00 pcy 6.39Water 280.00 pcy 4.49 260.00 pcy 4.17 233.00 pcy 3.73Air 6.50 % 1.76 6.50 % 1.76 6.50 % 1.76Total 27.00 27.00 27.00W/C RatioW/CM Ratio
CLB - Control Limestone Bridge Deck ConcreteOLB - Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete (Without Fly Ash)
OLFB - Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete (With Fly Ash)
SI Unit converstion Factorspcy-pounds per cubic yard1pcy- 0.593 kg/m3
1 oz.- 29.57 ml1 lb.- 0.4536 kg
CLB OLB OLFB
Weight Proportions
Weight Proportions
Weight Proportions
Cement - 3.17; Fly Ash - 2.50; Coarse Aggregate - 2.68; Fine Aggregate - 2.62
0.470.36
The following values of specific gravities were used for the calculation of volume proportions:
0.420.42
0.420.42
Notes
1. Appropriate quantity of air entraining agent should be used to obtain the required air content.
2. Whenever required, an appropriate quantity of water reducing agent (either mid
range or high range) should be used to achieve the specified slump.
Task 103.10 - Conduct performance tests on hardened concrete for field mix
combinations and on the collected field samples for the structural concrete. Performance
tests should include, but not be limited to, permeability, freeze thaw, durability, drying
shrinkage, compressive strength, and unit weight.
The field work (construction of the bridge decks using the recommended
optimized aggregate gradation mixes) has been postponed from summer 2002 to summer
126
2004, therefore the performance tests on field samples will be conducted once the field
work commences. Specimens will be prepared from the field concrete for testing for
hardened concrete properties. The fresh concrete quality control tests (listed in Task 8)
and described in Chapter 2.0 will be conducted in the field.
The strength and durability performance tests on hardened concretes (listed in
Task 8) as described in Chapter 2.0 will be conducted and included in a separate report.
In addition adequate number of samples would be prepared in the field and tested at
various ages to determine the compressive strength development with age up to 90 days.
3.11 Task 11 – Conduct petrographic analysis of selected cores to evaluate the mix
design characteristics and the relationship between the aggregate-paste ratio as it relates
to the strength and durability of the concrete.
The petrographic analysis of the selected cores will be done at the Engineering
and Mining Experiment Station (EMES) of the SDSM&T, with the guidance and
supervision provided by Dr. Edward F. Duke, Manager of EMES. Some graduate
students will help Dr. Duke in the Petrographic analysis. It is proposed to conduct
petrographic analysis for about 20 samples. However the number of samples will be
decided in consultation with the Technical Panel. The petrographic analysis will evaluate
the mix design characteristics and the relationship between the aggregate paste ratio as it
relates to the strength and durability of the concrete. The results will be given in a
separate report soon after construction of the bridges.
3.12 Task 12 – Survey bridge(s) constructed using the new gradation during the 2002
construction season within 6 months after construction to determine amount, average
crack width, and type of cracks on continuous concrete slab, steel girder, and pre-stressed
girder bridges.
A detailed condition survey of the bridges constructed using the new optimum
graded aggregates will be done immediately after the forms are removed. They will be
surveyed again after 6 months. The survey will consist of determining accurately, the
127
number and location of cracks, their lengths, widths and areas. Digital photographs will
be also taken. The type and nature of the cracks will be discussed. The performance of
these newly constructed bridges will be compared with the performance of bridges
surveyed in Task 3.
3.13 Task 13 - Recommend Class A45 Concrete mix designs, including aggregate
gradation, for optimized structural concrete based on results from this study.
This report includes recommendations for class A 45 concrete mix designs and
testing guidelines for the optimized structural concrete that could be used for bridge deck
and other structures. The recommendations include aggregate gradations for the three
types of aggregate sources in South Dakota. These recommendations are based on the
results from the laboratory study. The recommended mixture proportions for the three
types of aggregates are given below.
Table 3.20: Recommended Mixture Proportions for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate
IngredientVolume
Proportions (ft3)
Volume Proportions
(ft3)
Volume Proportions
(ft3)Cement 662.00 pcy 3.35 614.00 pcy 3.10 492.00 pcy 2.49Fly Ash 0.00 pcy 0.00 0.00 pcy 0.00 154.00 pcy 0.99Coarse Aggregate 1.5" 0.00 pcy 0.00 813.00 pcy 4.95 815.00 pcy 4.97
1.0" 1745.00 pcy 10.63 0.00 pcy 0.00 0.00 pcy 0.003/4" 0.00 pcy 0.00 1108.00 pcy 6.75 1110.00 pcy 6.76
Fine Aggregate 1114.00 pcy 6.81 1033.00 pcy 6.32 1036.00 pcy 6.34Water 278.04 pcy 4.46 256.00 pcy 4.10 231.00 pcy 3.70Air 6.50 % 1.76 6.50 % 1.76 6.50 % 1.76Total 27.00 27.00 27.00W/C RatioW/CM Ratio
CQB - Control Quartzite Bridge Deck ConcreteOQB - Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete (Without Fly Ash)
OQFB - Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete (With Fly Ash)
SI Unit converstion Factorspcy-pounds per cubic yard
1pcy- 0.593 kg/m3
1 oz.- 29.57 ml1 lb.- 0.4536 kg
0.36
The following values of specific gravities were used for the calculation of volume proportions:Cement - 3.17; Fly Ash - 2.50; Coarse Aggregate - 2.63; Fine Aggregate - 2.62
Weight Proportions
Weight Proportions
Weight Proportions
0.420.42
0.420.42
0.47
CQB OQB OQFB
128
Notes 1. Appropriate quantity of air entraining agent should be used to obtain the required
air content. 2. Whenever required, an appropriate quantity of water reducing agent (either mid
range or high range) should be used to achieve the specified slump.
Table 3.21: Recommended Mixture Proportions for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate
Ingredient
Volume Proportions
(ft3)
Volume Proportions
(ft3)
Volume Proportions
(ft3)Cement 667.00 pcy 3.37 619.00 pcy 3.13 496.00 pcy 2.51Fly Ash 0.00 pcy 0.00 0.00 pcy 0.00 155.00 pcy 0.99Coarse Aggregate 1.5" 0.00 pcy 0.00 893.00 pcy 5.34 898.00 pcy 5.37
1.0" 1759.00 pcy 10.52 0.00 pcy 0.00 0.00 pcy 0.003/4" 0.00 pcy 0.00 1043.00 pcy 6.24 1045.00 pcy 6.25
Fine Aggregate 1122.00 pcy 6.86 1043.00 pcy 6.38 1045.00 pcy 6.39Water 280.00 pcy 4.49 260.00 pcy 4.17 233.00 pcy 3.73Air 6.50 % 1.76 6.50 % 1.76 6.50 % 1.76Total 27.00 27.00 27.00W/C RatioW/CM Ratio
CLB - Control Limestone Bridge Deck ConcreteOLB - Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete (Without Fly Ash)
OLFB - Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete (With Fly Ash)
SI Unit converstion Factorspcy-pounds per cubic yard1pcy- 0.593 kg/m3
1 oz.- 29.57 ml1 lb.- 0.4536 kg
CLB OLB OLFB
Weight Proportions
Weight Proportions
Weight Proportions
Cement - 3.17; Fly Ash - 2.50; Coarse Aggregate - 2.68; Fine Aggregate - 2.62
0.470.36
The following values of specific gravities were used for the calculation of volume proportions:
0.420.42
0.420.42
Notes
1. Appropriate quantity of air entraining agent should be used to obtain the required air content.
2. Whenever required, an appropriate quantity of water reducing agent (either mid
range or high range) should be used to achieve the specified slump.
129
Table 3.22: Recommended Mixture Proportions for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate
Ingredient
Volume Proportions
(ft3)
Volume Proportions
(ft3)
Volume Proportions
(ft3)Cement 660.01 pcy 3.34 612.00 pcy 3.09 491.00 pcy 2.48Fly Ash 0.00 pcy 0.00 0.00 pcy 0.00 154.00 pcy 0.99Coarse Aggregate 1.5" 0.00 pcy 0.00 1030.00 pcy 6.32 1033.00 pcy 6.34
1.0" 1740.00 pcy 10.68 0.00 pcy 0.00 0.00 pcy 0.003/4" 0.00 pcy 0.00 882.00 pcy 5.42 885.00 pcy 5.43
Fine Aggregate 1109.00 pcy 6.78 1030.00 pcy 6.30 1033.00 pcy 6.32Water 277.21 pcy 4.44 257.00 pcy 4.12 231.00 pcy 3.70Air 6.50 % 1.76 6.50 % 1.76 6.50 % 1.76Total 27.00 27.00 27.00W/C RatioW/CM Ratio
CGB - Control Granite Bridge Deck ConcreteOGB - Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete (Without Fly Ash)
OGFB - Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete (With Fly Ash)
SI Unit converstion Factorspcy-pounds per cubic yard1pcy- 0.593 kg/m3
1 oz.- 29.57 ml1 lb.- 0.4536 kg
CGB OGB OGFB
Weight Proportions
Weight Proportions
Weight Proportions
0.42 0.42 0.470.36
The following values of specific gravities were used for the calculation of volume proportions:Cement - 3.17; Fly Ash - 2.50; Coarse Aggregate - 2.61; Fine Aggregate - 2.62
0.42 0.42
Notes
1. Appropriate quantity of air entraining agent should be used to obtain the required air content.
2. Whenever required, an appropriate quantity of water reducing agent (either mid
range or high range) should be used to achieve the specified slump.
3.14 Task 14 – Submit a final report summarizing relevant literature, research
methodology, test results, findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
130
This report includes the results of the literature survey, research methodology
used, detailed test results, observations, performance evaluations, conclusions and
recommendations based on the laboratory study. An executive summary is also included
in this report.
3.15 Task 15 – Make an executive presentation to the SDDOT Research Review Board
summarizing the findings and conclusions.
The P.I. will make an executive presentation summarizing the findings and
conclusions to SDDOT Research review Board.
131
CHAPTER 4.0 TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Fresh Concrete Properties
4.1.1 Fresh Concrete Properties with Quartzite Aggregates
Results of fresh concrete properties such as slump, air content, and unit weight for
the trial mixes are given in Table AQ13 (Appendix A). The fresh concrete properties for
the final mixes are given in Table AQ16 (Appendix A). The corresponding bar charts for
the trial mixes are shown in Figures AQ41, AQ44 and AQ47 (Appendix A). The bar
charts for the final mixes are shown in Figures 4.1 to 4.3. Figures AQ50, AQ53 and
AQ56 (Appendix A) show the bar charts for control and optimum concretes with
quartzite aggregate for the first mix.
The slump of the trial mixes ranged from 52.4 mm (2.1 in.) to 104.8 mm (4.1 in.)
for control concrete, 60.3 mm (2.4 in.) to 152.4 mm (6 in.) for optimum concrete without
fly ash, and 6.35 mm (0.25 in.) to 20.62 mm (0.812 in.) for optimum concrete with fly
ash. The trial mixes were done by varying the water-cement ratio from 0.40 to 0.45. The
final mixes were then done by selecting a water-cement ratio of 0.42.
The air content of the trial mixes ranged from 3.8% to 6.4% for control concrete,
4% to 6% for the optimum mix without fly ash, and from 2.6% to 3.6% for the optimum
mix with fly ash.
The unit weight of the trial mixes ranged from 2291 kg/m3 (143 lb/ft3) to 2387
kg/m3 3 (149 lb/ft ) for control concrete, 2307 kg/m3 3 (144 lb/ft ) to 2371 kg/m3 3 (148 lb/ft )
for optimum concrete without fly ash, and 2403 kg/m3 (150 lb/ft3) to 2435 kg/m3 (152
lb/ft3) for the optimum concrete with fly ash.
4.1.2 Fresh Concrete Properties with Limestone Aggregates:
Results of fresh concrete properties such as slump, air content, and unit weight for
the trial mixes are given in Table AL14 (Appendix A). The fresh concrete properties for
the final mixes are given in Table AL17 (Appendix A). The corresponding bar charts for
the trial mixes are shown in Figures AL42, AL45 and AL48 (Appendix A). The bar
charts for the final mixes are shown in Figures 4.4 to 4.7. Figures AL51, AL54 and AL57
132
(Appendix A) show the bar charts for control and optimum concretes with limestone
aggregate for the final mixes.
The slump of the trial mixes ranged from 12.7 mm (0.5 in.) to 101.6 mm (4.0 in.),
38.1 mm (1.5 in.) to 76.2 mm (3.0 in.) for control concrete, 55.9 mm (2.2 in.) to 68.6 mm
(2.7 in.) for optimum concrete without fly ash, and 50.8 mm (2.0 in.) to 81.3 mm (3.2 in.)
for optimum concrete with fly ash. The trial mixes were done by varying the water-
cement ratio from 0.42 to 0.55. The final mixes were then done by selecting a water-
cement ratio of 0.42.
The air content of the trial mixes ranged from 3.4% to 6.8%, 5.4% to 5.8% for
control concrete, 5.2% to 6.0% for the optimum mix without fly ash, and from 5.6% to
6.8% for the optimum mix with fly ash.
The unit weight of the trial mixes ranged from 2323 kg/m3 (145 lb/ft3) to 2403
kg/m3 3 (150 lb/ft ), 2355 kg/m3 3 (147 lb/ft ) to 2371 kg/m3 (148) lb/ft3 for control concrete,
2371 kg/m3 (148 lb/ft3) to 2387 kg/m3 3 (149 lb/ft ) for optimum concrete without fly ash,
and a constant weight of 2371 kg/m3 (148 lb/ft3) for the optimum concrete with fly ash.
4.1.3 Fresh Concrete Properties with Granite Aggregates:
Results of fresh concrete properties such as slump, air content, and unit weight for
the trial mixes are given in Table AG15 (Appendix A). The fresh concrete properties for
the final mixes are given in Table AG18 (Appendix A). The corresponding bar charts for
the trial mixes are shown in Figures AQ43, AQ46 and AQ49 (Appendix A). The bar
charts for the final mixes are shown in Figures 4.7 to 4.9. Figures AL52, AL55 and AL58
(Appendix A) show the bar charts for control and optimum concretes with Granite
aggregate for the final mixes.
The slump of the trial mixes was 52.4 mm (2.1 in.) for control concrete, 38.1 mm
(1.5 in.) for optimum concrete without fly ash, and 20.30 mm (0.8 in.) to 48.26 mm (1.9
in.) for optimum concrete with fly ash. The trial mixes were done by varying the water-
cement ratio from 0.42 to 0.50. The final mixes were then done by selecting a water-
cement ratio of 0.42 for Control Mix and Optimum Mix without Fly Ash and 0.47 for
Optimum Mix with Fly Ash.
133
The air content of the trial mixes was 5.6% for control concrete, 5.2% to 6.6% for
the optimum mix without fly ash, and 5.0% to 6.8% for the optimum mix with fly ash.
The unit weight of the trial mixes was 2291 kg/m3 (146 lb/ft3) for control
concrete, 2323 kg/m3 (145 lb/ft3) to 2371 kg/m3 (148 lb/ft3) for optimum concrete without
fly ash, and 2307 kg/m3 (144 lb/ft3) to 2355 kg/m3 3 (147 lb/ft ) for the optimum concrete
with fly ash.
Summary of the trial mix investigation
The primary objective of this project was to reduce shrinkage cracks in concrete by
reducing the excess cement content in the concrete mix by optimizing the aggregate
gradation. Different percentage reductions of cement content (8.4%, 10% and 15%) were
tried comprehensively, and tested for strength and workability characteristics. It was
found that concrete mixes made with 10% reduction in cement content (compared to the
corresponding control concrete) gave the optimum results. Even though there was a 10%
reduction in cement content, a corresponding strength reduction was not observed
because of the use of optimized aggregate gradation. This phenomenon was not observed
for concrete mixes made with 15% reduction in cement content. This indicated that
concretes made with 10% cement reduction were the optimum. The influence of different
percentages of cement content (8.4% & 10% for quartzite aggregate concretes, 10 & 15%
for limestone aggregate concretes and 10% for granite aggregate) on the durability
characteristics of concretes were also determined and are also reported in the Appendix.
The comparison of the durability test results between the two sets of mixes (8.4 % and
10%) with different percentages of cement reduction for concretes made with quartzite
aggregate were made. It was found that the strength and durability test results of both the
sets of mixes showed similar trends. Because of this, only the results of concretes (made
with quartzite aggregates) with 10% reduction in cement content are discussed. Similarity
of durability test results was not observed for concretes made with limestone aggregates
with different percentages reduction in cement content (10% & 15%). It was found from
trial mixes that by using well-graded aggregates the cement content could be reduced to a
maximum of 10% without compromising the strength and workability of concrete.
134
4.2 Quartzite Aggregate Mixes:
4.2.1 Mix used for Strength Development and Alkali Aggregate Reactivity:
4.2.1.1 Fresh Concrete Properties:
Mix 1 was used for the study of strength development of concrete, resistance to
sulfate attack, rapid chloride permeability test, drying shrinkage, and flexural strength.
Three mixes were made, control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and
optimum concrete with fly ash. The slumps were 82.5 mm (3.25 in.) for control concrete,
89 mm (3.5 in.) for optimum concrete without fly ash and 38.1 mm (1.5 in.) for optimum
concrete with fly ash. There was a replacement of 20% by weight of cement with 25% by
weight of fly ash for the optimum concrete with fly ash mix. A medium range water
reducer was used for the optimum concrete with fly ash mixes.
0
1
2
3
4
Control Optimum with out Fly Ash Optimum with Fly Ash
Slum
p (in
)
Figure 4.1: Comparison of Slump for Bridge Deck Concrete with
Quartzite Aggregate
135
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Control Optimum with out Fly Ash Optimum with Fly Ash
Air
Con
tent
(%)
Figure 4.2: Comparison of Air Content for Bridge Deck Concrete with
Quartzite Aggregate (Mix 1)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Control Optimum with out Fly Ash Optimum with Fly Ash
Uni
t Wei
ght (
pcf)
Figure 4.3: Comparison of Unit Weights for Bridge Deck Concrete with
Quartzite Aggregate
136
The air content for control concrete was 6.6%, for the optimum mix without fly
ash was 6.6%, and for the optimum mix with fly ash was 5.4%. The control and optimum
with out fly ash concretes had slightly higher air content compared to the optimum with
fly ash concrete. All the air contents were within the specified limits of 6.25 ± 1.25
percent.
The unit weights were 2307 kg/m3 (144 lb/ft3) for control concrete, 2291 kg/m3
(143 lb/ft3) for optimum concrete without fly ash and 2387 kg/m3 (149 lb/ft3) for
optimum concrete with fly ash.
The ambient temperature was 26.60 C (80 F) for all the mixes. The humidity was
45% for all the three mixes. The concrete temperatures for the final mixes are given in
Table A6.
4.2.1.2 Hardened Concrete Properties
4.2.1.2.1 Compressive Strength
Testing for the compressive strength of trial mixes was done at 1, 3, 7, 14 and 28
days. The 28-day strength results are given in Table BQ1. The bar chart is shown in
Figure BQ1. The final mix was selected based on the required workability and strength.
Tests were carried out at 1, 3, 7, 14, 28, 56 and 90 days with three cylinders per
mix to study the strength development of the control concrete, optimum concrete without
fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash. The strength development of the optimum
concretes was compared to the control concrete. The results are given in Tables BQ1,
BQ4 and BQ7. Table BQ1 gives the results of compressive strength for control concrete,
Table BQ4 for optimum concrete without fly ash and Table BQ7 gives the results of
optimum concrete with fly ash.
A bar chart showing the rate of strength development at all ages is shown in Figure 4.4.
137
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
1 day 3 day 7 day 14 day 28 day 56 day 90 day
Com
pres
sive
Str
engt
h (p
si)
ControlOptimum without Fly AshOptimum with Fly Ash
Figure 4.4: Comparison of Compressive Strengths for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate
The results for compressive strength of the final mixes for control concrete, optimum
concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash are discussed below.
The 1 day to 90 day compressive strength of the concretes increased from 11.56
MPa (1678 psi) to 38.00 MPa (5512 psi) for the control quartzite bridge deck concrete,
17.64 MPa (2559 psi) to 40.23 MPa (5836 psi) for the optimum quartzite bridge deck
concrete without fly ash and from 24.10 MPa (3496 psi) to 47.15 MPa (6839 psi) for
optimum quartzite bridge deck concrete with fly ash.
The optimum concrete with fly ash had the highest 1-day compressive strength of
24.16 Mpa (3505 psi). The 1-day compressive strengths for optimum concrete without fly
ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 41% and 62% more than that of the control
concrete.
The 3-day compressive strengths for the control concrete, optimum concrete
without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 23.4 MPa (3407 psi), 27.26 MPa
138
(3954 psi) and 30.88 MPa (4479 psi) respectively. The 3-day compressive strengths for
optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 13.8% and
31.4% more than that of the control concrete.
The 7-day compressive strengths for the control concrete, optimum concrete
without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 25.06 MPa (3831 psi), 30.83
MPa (4472 psi) and 37.98 MPa (5508 psi) respectively. The 7-day compressive strengths
for optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 16.8% and
43.70% more than that of the control concrete.
The 14-day compressive strengths for the control concrete, optimum concrete
without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 31.36 MPa (4549 psi), 32.78
MPa (4755 psi) and 44.17 MPa (6407 psi) respectively. The 14-day compressive
strengths for optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were
4.55% and 40.8% more than that of the control concrete.
The 28-day compressive strengths for the control concrete, optimum concrete
without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 35.92 MPa (5211 psi), 36.98
MPa (5364 psi) and 44.62 MPa (6473 psi) respectively. The 28-day compressive
strengths for optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were
2.5% and 24% more than that of the control concrete.
The 56-day compressive strength for the control concrete, optimum concrete
without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 36.73 MPa (5328 psi), 39.27
MPa (5696 psi) and 45.90 MPa (6658 psi) respectively. The 56-day compressive
strengths for optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were
7% and 25% more than that of the control concrete.
The 90-day compressive strengths for the control concrete, optimum concrete
without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 38.00 MPa (5512 psi), 40.23
MPa (5836 psi) and 47.15 MPa (6839 psi) respectively. The 90-day compressive
strengths for optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were
6% and 24% more than that of the control concrete.
139
4.2.1.2.2 Static Modulus
Testing was done at 28, 56 and 90 days for static modulus. Three specimens were
tested for each mix. The results are given in Tables BQ10, BQ13 and BQ16. Table BQ10
gives the results of static modulus for control concrete, Table A9 for optimum concrete
without fly ash and Table BQ13 gives the results of optimum concrete with fly ash. The
corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure 4.5.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
28 56 90
Age (Days)
Stat
ic M
odul
us (
x106 ps
i)
CQB OQB OQFB
Figure 4.5: Comparison of Static modulus for Bridge deck concrete with Quartzite
Aggregate
The static modulus values ranged from 3.0 x 104 Mpa (4.65 x 106 psi) to 3.60 x
104 Mpa (5.30 x 106 psi) for control concrete, 3.4 x 104 Mpa (4.95 x 106 psi) to 3.88 x 104
Mpa (5.55 x 106 psi) for optimum concrete without fly ash and from 4.00 x 104 Mpa
(5.89 x 106 4 6 psi) to 4.44 x 10 Mpa (6.48 x 10 psi) for optimum concrete with fly ash. The
highest static modulus value was obtained for the optimum concrete with fly ash at 90
days, and was 4.44 x 104 6 Mpa (6.48 x 10 psi).
140
4.2.1.2.3 Dry Unit Weight
The dry unit weight results for 1, 3, 7, 14, 28, 56 and 90 days are given in Tables
BQ1, BQ4 and BQ7. The average dry unit weight varied from 2322 Kg/m3 (145 lb/ft3) to
2386 Kg/m3 (152 lb/ft3). The control quartzite bridge deck concrete had the lowest dry
unit weight of 2434 Kg/m3 3 (145 lb/ft ) compared to the optimum quartzite bridge deck
concrete without & with fly ash. A bar chart showing dry unit weights at the end of 90
days is shown in Figure 4.6.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Control Optimum Optimum with Fly Ash
Mix
Dry
Uni
t Wei
ght (
lb/ft
3 )
Figure 4.6: Comparison of Dry Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate
4.2.1.2.4 Modulus of Rupture (Flexural Strength)
Tests were conducted at 14 days and 28 days to determine the flexural strength of
concrete. Three specimens per mix of size 356 mm x 100 mm x 100 mm (14 in x 4 in x 4
in) were tested for control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum
concrete with fly ash. The results are given in Table BQ10, BQ13 and BQ16. The
corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure 4.7.
141
The flexural strength of concrete varied from 3.40 Mpa (494 psi) to 5.03 Mpa
(730 psi). The optimum concrete with fly ash had the highest flexural strength compared
to the control concrete and the optimum concrete without fly ash.
The 14 day flexural strengths of control concrete, optimum concrete without fly
ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 3.51 Mpa (510 psi), 3.66 Mpa (531 psi) and
4.19 Mpa (609 psi) respectively. The 14-day flexural strengths for optimum concrete
without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 4% and 19.4% more than that of
the control concrete.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
14 Day 28 DayAge (Days)
Flex
ural
Stre
ngth
(psi
)
ControlOptimum without Fly AshOptimum with Fly Ash
Figure 4.7: Comparison of Flexural strength for Bridge Deck Concrete with
Quartzite Aggregate The 28 day flexural strengths of control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and
optimum concrete with fly ash were 4.20 Mpa (610 psi), 4.30 Mpa (625 psi) and 4.93
Mpa (716 psi) respectively. The 28-day flexural strength for optimum concrete without
fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 2.4% and 17.3% respectively more than
that for the control concrete. 4.2.1.2.5 Sulfate Resistance of Concrete
The mean expansion of mortar bars exposed to sodium sulfate solution having a
pH of 7.2 was studied. Six specimens of size 286 mm x 25 mm x 25 mm (11.25 in x 1 in
142
x 1 in) were exposed to the sulfate solution and the average expansions of the six
specimens were noted. The results of the mean expansion for bridge deck concrete with
quartzite aggregate are given in Tables DQ1, DQ4 and DQ7.
The mean expansions of control, optimum without fly ash and optimum with fly
ash concretes at the end of 15 weeks were 0.02792%, 0.02200% and 0.01950%
respectively. It can be observed that the average expansion of specimens increased with
respect to time. The optimum concrete with fly ash had lesser mean expansion compared
to control concrete and optimum concrete without fly ash. It can be concluded that the
addition of fly ash had increased the resistance of concrete to sulfate solution.
The addition of fly ash resists the ettringite formation, which is formed in
hardened concrete that is exposed to sulfate rich environments. The formation of
ettringite causes cracking which will deteriorate the concrete. The addition of fly ash
also reduced the formation of Gypsum (which causes deterioration in concrete) and
increased the resistance to sulfate attack.
There were reductions of 18% and 29% in the mean expansions of optimum
concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash, when compared to that of the
control concrete. The results are shown in Figure 4.8.
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Immersion Age (Weeks)
Mea
n E
xpan
sion
(%)
CQB OQB 3OQFB
Figure 4.8: Mean expansion of mortar bars (Quartzite Aggregate) subjected to
sulfate solution.
143
4.2.1.3 Chloride Permeability Test
Tests were conducted at 56 days and 90 days for the control concrete, optimum
concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash. The results are given in
Table EQ1.
At 56 days, the control concrete had a chloride permeability value of 5400
coulombs, which is classified as “High”, the optimum concrete without fly ash had a
permeability value of 3019 coulombs, which is classified as “Moderate”, and the
optimum with fly ash had a permeability value of 2306 coulombs, which is classified as
“Moderate”.
At 90 days, the control concrete had a chloride permeability value of 4830
coulombs, which is classified as “High”, the optimum concrete without fly ash had a
permeability value of 2077 coulombs, which is classified as “Moderate”, and the
optimum with fly ash had a permeability value of 1800 coulombs, which is classified as
“Low”. The bar chart showing the results of chloride permeability at 56 and 90 days is
shown in Figure 4.9.
The addition of fly ash had increased the resistance of concrete towards the
penetration of chloride ions. Of all the three mixes, control concrete, optimum concrete
without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash, the optimum concrete with fly ash
had the highest resistance to the permeability of chloride ions.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
CQB OQB OQFBMix
Perm
eabi
lity
(Col
oum
bs)
At 56 DaysAt 90 Days
Figure 4.9: Comparison of Chloride ion permeability for Bridge deck concrete with Quartzite Aggregate
144
4.2.1.4 Drying Shrinkage Deformations
The shrinkage deformations of the concrete specimens for control concrete and
the optimum concrete mixes were evaluated. Three specimens of size 286 mm x 75 mm x
75 mm (11.25 in x 3 in x 3 in) per mix were used to evaluate the shrinkage deformations.
The measured shrinkage deformations and the duration over which they have been taken
are given in Table GQ1. The time vs. drying shrinkage deformations for the three mixes
are shown in Figure 4.10.
At the end of 90 days, the control concrete had the highest unit shrinkage strain of
447 x 10-6 -6, optimum concrete without fly ash had 378 x 10 , and optimum concrete with
fly ash had 328 x 10-6. The corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure 4.11. The
optimum concrete with fly ash had the least shrinkage strain of all the three mixes.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 30 60
Time (in Days)
Shri
nkag
e D
efor
mat
ion,
10-6
in/in
90
CQB OQB 3OQFB
Figure 4.10: Comparison of Drying Shrinkage Deformations for Bridge Deck concrete with Quartzite Aggregate
There were reductions of 15% and 26% in the shrinkage deformations for
optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash respectively when
compared to that of the control concrete, at the end of 90 days. The use of well-graded
aggregate led to the reduction in cement content and hence there was a reduction in the
drying shrinkage of concrete
145
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Control Optimum Optimum with Fly Ash
Mix
Shri
nkag
e D
efor
mat
ions
, 10-6
in/in
Figure 4.11: Comparison of Drying Shrinkage Deformations at the end of 90 days
for Bridge Deck concrete with Quartzite Aggregate
4.2.2 Mix used for Initial and Final Setting Times, Deicer Chemicals, Resistance
to Freeze-Thaw cycles and Alkali aggregate reactivity.
4.2.2.1 Fresh Concrete Properties
Mix 2 was used for the study of setting times of concrete. Three mixes were
made, control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly
ash. The slumps were 63.5 mm (2.5 in.) for control concrete, 63.5 mm (2.5 in.) for
optimum concrete without fly ash and 76.2 mm (3 in.) for optimum concrete with fly ash.
For the optimum concrete with fly ash, there was a replacement of 20% by weight of
cement with 25% percent by weight of fly ash. A medium range water reducer was used
for the optimum concrete with fly ash mixes. The corresponding bar chart is shown in
Figure AQ59 (Appendix A).
The air content for control concrete was 5.8%, for the optimum mix without fly
ash was 6.2%, and for the optimum mix with fly ash was 5.4%. The optimum with out fly
ash had higher air content compared to the other two mixes. The corresponding bar chart
is shown in Figure AQ61 (Appendix A).
146
The unit weights were 2322 kg/m3 (145 lb/ft3) for control concrete, 2322 kg/m3
(144 lb/ft3) for optimum concrete without fly ash and 2386 kg/m3 (149 lb/ft3) for
optimum concrete with fly ash. The corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure AQ64
(Appendix A).
The ambient temperature was 21.10 C (70 F) and humidity was 45% during the
mixing of concrete.
4.2.2.2 Initial and Final Setting Times
The main objective was to determine the initial and final setting times of concrete,
by sieving the mortar from the concrete. The penetration resistances recorded
corresponding to the elapsed times are given in Tables CQ1, CQ4 and CQ7 for bridge
deck concrete with quartzite aggregate. The time vs. penetration graphs are shown in
figures CQ1, CQ4 and CQ7 (Appendix C). The initial setting time for the quartzite bridge
deck mixes ranged from 212 minutes to 295 minutes. The optimum concrete with fly ash
had higher initial setting time compared to control and optimum with out fly ash
concretes. The final setting times for the quartzite bride deck mixes ranged from 255
minutes to 325 minutes. The control concrete with quartzite aggregate had lesser final
setting time compared to the both optimum concretes. The summary of the setting times
for bridge deck concrete is given in Table 4.1.
The optimum quartzite bridge deck concrete with fly ash had higher initial and
final setting times compared to both control concrete and optimum concrete without fly
ash. Among the three mixes for bridge deck concrete, the control quartzite bridge deck
concrete had lesser initial and final setting times when compared to the optimum concrete
with fly ash. The bar charts for initial and final setting times for bridge deck concrete are
shown in Figures 4.12 and 4.13.
Table 4.1: Summary of Initial and Final Setting Time of Bridge Deck Concrete Mix ID Initial Setting Time Final Setting Time
(mins) (mins)2-CQB 212 2552-OQB 250 292
2-OQFB 295 325
Mix Description
Control Quartzite Bridge Deck ConcreteOptimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly ashOptimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly ash
147
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Control Optimum Optimum with Fly AshMix
Tim
e(m
in)
Figure 4.12: Comparison of Initial Setting time for Bridge deck concrete with
Quartzite Aggregate
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Control Optimum Optimum with Fly AshMix
Tim
e(m
in)
Figure 4.13: Comparison of Final Setting time for Bridge deck concrete with
Quartzite Aggregate
The addition of fly ash increased the initial and final setting times for bridge deck
concrete with quartzite aggregates. The ambient temperature and humidity were noted for
all the mixes.
148
4.2.2.3 Scaling Resistance of Concrete to Deicing Chemicals
The main aim was to determine the resistance to scaling of concrete surface
exposed to freezing and thawing cycles in the presence of deicing chemicals. Two
specimens of size 355.6 x 152.4 x 152.4 mm (14 x 6 x 6 in.) were subjected to freezing
and thawing cycles in the presence of Calcium Chloride solution. They were subjected to
50 cycles of freezing and thawing. Each cycle had 18 hours of freezing and 6 hours of
thawing. At the end of 50 cycles the scaling resistance was determined visually by
comparing with the standard scaling chart given by ASTM. The scaling classification for
the control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly
ash are given in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2: Comparison of Scaling Resistance for Bridge Deck Concrete with
Quartzite Aggregate
Mix ID ASTM ClassificationSpecimen 1 Specimen 2
CQB 1 1 Very Light Scaling
OQB 1 1 Very Light Scaling
OQFB 0 0 No Scaling
ASTM Rating
The standard ASTM classification chart is shown in Figure 4.13. The optimum
concrete with fly ash had performed better than the control concrete and optimum
concrete without fly ash. There was no scaling observed for the optimum concrete with
fly ash. The control concrete and optimum concrete without fly ash had very light scaling
at the end of 50 cycles of freezing and thawing in the presence of Calcium Chloride
solution.
The scaling of the control concrete specimen is shown in Figure 4.14, optimum
concrete without fly ash specimen is shown in Figure 4.15, and the optimum concrete
with fly ash specimen is shown in Figure 4.16. All the three mixes had good scaling
resistance after 50 cycles of freezing and thawing in the presence of deicing chemicals
(calcium chloride solution)
149
Figure 4.14: ASTM classification chart for Deicer Scaling
Figure 4.15: Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete – After 50 cycles of Freezing and Thawing in the presence of Deicing Chemicals
150
Figure 4.16: Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash – After 50
cycles of Freezing and Thawing in the presence of Deicing Chemicals
Figure 4.17: Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash – After 50 cycles of Freezing and Thawing in the presence of Deicing Chemicals
151
4.2.2.4 Alkali Aggregate Reactivity
The mean percentage expansion of the mortar bars exposed to sodium hydroxide
solution was studied. Four specimens of size 286 mm x 25 mm x 25 mm (11.25 in x 1 in
x 1 in) were exposed to the alkali solution. The mean expansion was found at 3, 7, 11 and
14 days for all the concretes. The results are given in Tables FQ1, FQ4 and FQ7
(Appendix F). Table FQ1 gives the mean percent expansion for the control concrete,
Table FQ4 gives mean percent expansion for the optimum concrete without fly ash and
Table FQ7 gives mean percent expansion for the optimum concrete with fly ash. The
maximum expansion at the end of 14 days was observed for control concrete, and the
minimum was observed for the optimum concrete with fly ash.
The control concrete had a percentage expansion of 0.20833%, the optimum
concrete without fly ash had an expansion of 0.18400%, and optimum concrete with fly
ash had a mean expansion of 0.03775%, at the end of 14 days. The optimum concrete
with fly ash had lesser mean expansion when compared to optimum concrete without fly
ash and control concrete. The optimum concrete mixes performed better than the control
concrete at all ages. The optimum concrete with fly ash had better resistance to the alkali
solution, when compared to the control concrete and optimum concrete without fly ash.
The mean expansions of the control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and
optimum concrete with fly ash, at all ages are given in Table 4.3.
It can be observed from the results that there were reductions of 10% and 85% in
the mean percentage expansions of optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum
concrete with fly ash, when compared to the control concrete at the end of 14 days. The
addition of fly ash had reduced the mean percentage expansion, and increased the
resistance of concrete to alkali attack. The results are shown in Figure 4.18.
Table 4.3: Summary of mean percent expansion of Alkali Aggregate specimens for
Bridge deck concrete MIX ID Mix Description Percent Expansion after
3 Days 7 Days 11 Days 14 DaysCQB Control Quartzite Concrete 0.02788 0.11463 0.16478 0.20833OQB Optimum Quartzite concrete with out fly ash 0.02288 0.10588 0.14138 0.18400
OQFB Optimum Quartzite Concrete with fly ash 0.00625 0.01238 0.02813 0.03775
152
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Age(Days)
Mea
n E
xpan
sion
(%)
Control Quartzite Bridge Deck
Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck
Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck with FlyAsh
Inno
cous
Del
eter
ious
Inno
cous
&
Del
eter
ious
Figure 4.18: Comparison of Mean Expansion of Mortar bars subjected to Alkali
Solution for Bridge deck concrete with Quartzite aggregate.
4.2.2.5 Freeze Thaw Resistance
The pulse time and pulse velocity measured for control concrete, optimum
concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash are given in Tables IQ1 and
IQ2 (Appendix I). The corresponding graph is shown in Figure 4.19. The pulse velocity
after 300 cycles of freezing and thawing for the control concrete was 4489 m/s (14729)
ft/sec), 4521 m/s (14833 ft/sec) for optimum concrete without fly ash and 4575 m/s
(15012 ft/sec) for optimum concrete with fly ash. At 0 cycles (14 days) the pulse velocity
was taken as 100% and the percentage change in pulse velocity was calculated for the
300 cycles (64 days) of freezing and thawing. The percentage change in pulse velocity
for all the three mixes are given in Table IQ7 (Appendix I). The control concrete exposed
to freeze thaw cycles exhibited a reduction of pulse velocity from 100% at 0 cycles to
95.59% at 300 cycles. The optimum concrete without fly ash exposed to freeze thaw
cycles exhibited a reduction of pulse velocity from 100% at 0 cycles to 95.33% at 300
cycles. The optimum concrete with fly ash exposed to freeze thaw cycles exhibited
153
reduction of pulse velocity from 100% at 0 cycles to 95.03% at 300 cycles. The pulse
velocities for the specimens subjected to standard curing were also recorded. The pulse
velocity after 64 days of standard curing for the control concrete was 4734 m/s (15534
ft/sec), 4806 m/s (15769 ft/sec) for optimum concrete without fly ash and 4922 m/s
(16150 ft/sec) for optimum concrete with fly ash. The control concrete subjected to
standard curing exhibited an increase of pulse velocity from 100% at 14 days to 106.95%
at 64 days. The optimum concrete without fly ash subjected to standard curing exhibited
an increase of pulse velocity from 100% at 14 days to 107.65% at 64 days. The optimum
concrete with fly ash subjected to standard curing exhibited an increase of pulse velocity
from 100% at 14 days to 108.44% at 64 days.
The mean expansions of the specimens subjected to freeze thaw and standard
curing were measured and are given in Table A34 (Appendix A). The corresponding
graph is shown in Figure 4.20. The mean expansions for control concrete, optimum
concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 0.02850%, 0.01725%
and 0.01300% when exposed to 300 cycles of freezing and thawing. The mean expansion
was greater for the control concrete when compared to the optimum mixes.
14000
14500
15000
15500
16000
16500
17000
17500
18000
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330
Freeze thaw cycles
Puls
e ve
loci
ty(f
t/sec
)
Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck concrete subjected to freeze thaw
Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck concrete with fly ash subjected to freeze thaw
Control Quartzite Bridge Deck concrete subjected to freeze thaw
Control Quartzite Bridge Deck concrete subjected to standard curing
Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck concrete subjected to standard curing
Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck concrete with fly ash subjected to standardcuring
Figure 4.19: Change in Pulse Velocity for Bridge Deck Concrete specimens with
Quartzite Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing
154
0.0000
0.0050
0.0100
0.0150
0.0200
0.0250
0.0300
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Mea
n ex
pans
ion
(%)
Control Quartzite Bridge Deck concrete subjected to Freeze thaw curing
Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck concrete subjected to Freeze thaw curing
Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck concrete with fly ash subjected to Freezethaw curingOptimum Quartzite Bridge Deck concrete with fly ash subjected toStandard curingOptimum Quartzite Bridge Deck concrete subjected Standard curing
Control Quartzite Bridge Deck concrete subjected to Standard curing
Figure 4.20: Comparison of Mean Expansion for Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Quartzite Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard
Curing
The durability factor for all the three mixes were calculated from 0 cycles to 300
cycles of freeze thaw and standard cured specimens. The durability factor for the control
concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash are given
in Table IQ13 (Appendix I). The control concrete exposed to freeze thaw cycles exhibited
a reduction in durability factor from 100 at 0 cycles (14 days) to 91.40 at 300 cycles (64
days). The optimum concrete without fly ash exposed to freeze thaw cycles exhibited a
reduction in durability factor from 100 at 0 cycles to 90.88 at 300 cycles. The optimum
concrete with fly ash exposed to freeze thaw cycles exhibited reduction in durability
factor from 100 at 0 cycles to 90.32 at 300 cycles. The durability factors for the
specimens subjected to standard curing were also observed. The control concrete
subjected to standard curing exhibited an increase in durability factor from 100 at 14 days
to 114.4 at 64 days. The optimum concrete without fly ash subjected to standard curing
exhibited an increase in durability factor from 100 at 14 days to 115.89 at 64 days. The
optimum concrete with fly ash subjected to standard curing exhibited an increase in
155
durability factor from 100 at 14 days to 117.60 at 64 days. All the concretes including
control and optimum mixes had durability in the range of 90 – 92 indicating very good
freeze thaw resistance (ASTM C 494 sets the minimum durability factor at 80%). The
mean expansion for optimum concretes was less compared to control concrete when
subjected to freezing and thawing. The mean expansion was very less for all the
concretes and was in the range of 0.00125% - 0.02825%. The accepted failure criterion is
0.1% expansion.
The saturated surface dry absorption coefficient is defined as the ratio of weight
of moisture to the dry weight expressed as percentage. The saturated surface dry
absorption coefficient for the three mixes is shown in Table 4.4. The saturated surface dry
absorption coefficient was calculated for all the mixes after the completion of 300 cycles
of freezing and thawing. The absorption coefficients for control concrete, optimum
concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash after 300 cycles of freezing
and thawing were 2.40%, 2.18% and 1.71 %. The absorption coefficients for control
concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash after 64
days of standard curing were 2.09%, 1.99% and 1.62 %.
Table 4.4: Saturated surface dry Absorption coefficient for Quartzite Bridge Deck concrete
Mix Specimen No of cycles Age at Testing AbsorptionID Curing (Days) Coefficient
by weight(%)
CQB Freeze Thaw 300 64 2.42
Standard 64 2.12
OQB Freeze Thaw 300 64 2.21
Standard 64 2.04
OQFB Freeze Thaw 300 64 1.74
Standard 64 1.68
Standard Curing- Specim ens placed in the Moist Curing roomFreeze Thaw- Specimens subjected to Freeze Thaw cycles
156
4.2.3 Mix used for creep of concrete.
4.2.3.1 Fresh Concrete Properties
Mix 3 was used for the study of creep of concrete. Three mixes were made,
control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash.
The slumps were 88.9 mm (3.5 in.) for control concrete, 76.2 mm (3 in.) for optimum
concrete without fly ash and 88.9 mm (3.5 in.) for optimum concrete with fly ash. For the
optimum concrete with fly ash, there was a replacement of 20% by weight of cement with
25% percent by weight of fly ash. A medium range water reducer was used for the
optimum concrete with fly ash mixes. The corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure
HQ1 (Appendix H).
The air content for control concrete was 6.4%, for the optimum mix without fly
ash was 6.4%, and for the optimum mix with fly ash was 6.2%. Both the control concrete
and optimum concrete with out fly ash had slightly higher air content compared to the
optimum concrete with fly ash. The corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure HQ4
(Appendix H).
The unit weights were 2338 kg/m3 (146 lb/ft3) for control concrete, 2338 kg/m3
(146 lb/ft3) for optimum concrete without fly ash and 2306 kg/m3 (144 lb/ft3) for
optimum concrete with fly ash. The corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure HQ7
(Appendix H).
The ambient temperature was 23.90 C (75 F) and humidity was 40% during the
mixing of concrete.
4.2.3.2 Creep and Shrinkage
The creep strains were determined by subtracting initial elastic strain at loading
and shrinkage strain from the total strain of a loaded specimen. The creep strains plotted
are the average of six values measured on two diametrically opposite faces of three
cylinders. The creep data are given in Tables HQ1, HQ4 and HQ7 (Appendix H).
The stress level applied was 5.51 Mpa (800 psi). The stress-strength ratios for the
control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash
were 15.35%, 14.91% and 12.35% respectively for compressive strengths of 35.92 MPa
157
(5211 psi), 36.98 MPa (5364 psi) and 44.62 MPa (6473 psi). The total unit creep strains
for control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly
ash were 465 x 10-6 in/in, 378 x 10-6 in/in and 343 x 10-6 in/in respectively at the end of
60 days. The control concrete had the highest total unit creep strain of 465 x 10-6 in./in. at
an age of 60 days. The total unit strains and unit shrinkage strains for all the three mixes
are shown in Figures HQ1, HQ4 and HQ7 (Appendix H) and Figure 4.21. The unit
specific creep for all the three mixes is shown in Figure 4.22. The creep rate for all the
three mixes is shown in Figure 4.23.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7Time in Days
Tot
al U
nit S
trai
n (1
0̂-6
, in/
in)
0
CQB Total Unit StrainOQB Total Unit StrainOQFB Total Unit StrainCQB Unit Shrinkage StrainOQB Unit Shrinkage StrainOQFB Unit Shrinkage Strain
Figure 4.21: Total Unit strain and Unit Shrinkage strains for all the three concretes with Quartzite Aggregate at the end of 60 days
158
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time in Days
Uni
t Spe
cific
Cre
ep, 1
0-6 in
/in/p
si
CQB Stress-Strength Ratio :15.35%OQB Stress-Strength Ratio :14.91%OQFB Stress-Strength Ratio:12.35%
Figure 4.22: Comparison of Unit Specific Creep at the end of 60 days for concrete
with Quartzite Aggregate
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0 1 10
Time in Days
Cre
ep R
ate,
10-6
100
CQB
OQB
OQFB
Figure 4.23: Comparison of Creep rate for the Bridge deck concrete with Quartzite
Aggregate
159
The unit creep strain and unit specific creep were less for the optimum concrete
with fly ash at any time after loading. From the results obtained, the decrease in creep
strains for the optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash may
be due to a relatively higher rate of strength gain after the day of loading, when compared
the control concrete.
4.2.3.3 Creep Recovery
Strain recovery measurements after unloading were taken on all the creep
specimens after 60 days of loading. The creep recovery was observed for 10 days for all
the three mixes. The values of strain measurement for the control concrete, optimum
concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash are given in Tables HQ10,
HQ13 and HQ16 (Appendix H) respectively. The elastic recovery and creep recovery for
all the three mixes are shown in Figures HQ10, HQ13 and HQ16 (Appendix H). The
creep strain and creep recovery strain for the three mixes is shown in Figure 4.24.
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 8
Time in Days
Uni
t cre
ep st
rain
(10^
-6, i
n/in
)
0
CQB OQB OQFB
Figure 4.24: Comparison of Unit Creep Strain and Unit Elastic and Creep Recovery
on Unloading for Quartzite Aggregate
160
The initial unit elastic recovery for control concrete, optimum concrete without
fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 133 x 10-6 -6 in/in, 142 x 10 in/in and 143
x 10-6 in/in. The initial unit elastic recoveries for the three mixes were 83%, 83% and
84% of the initial unit elastic strain. The unit creep recoveries for the control concrete,
optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 55 x 10-6, 47 x
10-6 -6 and 45 x 10 . The unit creep recovery for control concrete was 17%, for optimum
concrete without fly ash was 20% and for optimum concrete with fly ash was 23%.
Regardless of the strength of concrete, most of the creep recovery takes place
during the first few days after unloading. Thereafter, the rate of creep recovery decreased
considerably. Based on the strain recovery results for approximately same stress-strength
ratio, the initial unit elastic strain recovery and unit creep strain recovery were greater,
the higher the strength of concrete.
4.3 Limestone Aggregates 4.3.1 Mix used for Strength Development, Flexure, Alkali Aggregate Reactivity and Freeze Thaw Resistance: 4.3.1.1 Fresh Concrete Properties:
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Control Optimum Optimum with Fly Ash
Mix
Slum
p (in
ch)
Figure 4.25: Comparison of Slump for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone
Aggregate (Mix 2)
161
Mix 2 was used for the study of strength development of concrete and alkali
aggregate reactivity. Three mixes were made control concrete, optimum concrete without
fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash. The slumps were 50.8 mm (2.0 in.) for control
concrete, 55.9 mm (2.2 in.) for optimum concrete without fly ash and 50.8 mm (2.0 in.)
for optimum concrete with fly ash. It should be noted that there was a replacement of
20% by weight of cement with 25% by weight of fly ash for the optimum concrete with
fly ash mix. A medium range water reducer was used for the optimum concrete with fly
ash mixes. A bar chart comparison of the slumps is shown in Figure 4.25.
Figure 4.26: Comparison of Air Content for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone
Aggregate (Mix 2)
The air content for control concrete was 5.4%, for the optimum mix without fly
ash was 5.4%, and for the optimum mix with fly ash was 5.6%. The optimum mix with
fly ash had higher air content compared to the optimum and control concretes. A bar
chart comparison of the Air Contents is shown in Figure 4.26
The unit weights were 2355 kg/m3 (147 lb/ft3) for control concrete, 2387 kg/m3
(149 lb/ft3) for optimum concrete without fly ash and 2371 kg/m3 (148 lb/ft3) for
optimum concrete with fly ash. A bar chart comparison of the Unit Weight is shown in
Figure 4.27.
162
The ambient temperature was 21.10 C (70 F) for all the mixes. The humidity
varied from 30% to 45%. The concrete temperatures for the trial mixes are given in Table
AL14 and for the final mixes are given in Table AL17.
Figure 4.27: Comparison of Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone
Aggregate (Mix 2)
4.3.1.2 Hardened Concrete Properties
4.3.1.2.1 Compressive Strength
Testing for the compressive strength of trial mixes was done at 1, 3, 7, 14 and 28
days for 100 mm x 200 mm (4 in. x 8 in.) specimens. The 28-day strength results are
given in Table AQ1. The bar chart is shown in Figure AQ1. The final mix was selected
based on the workability and strength.
Tests were carried out at 1, 3, 7, 14, 28, 56 and 90 days with three cylinders per
mix to study the strength development of the control concrete, optimum concrete without
fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash. The strength development of the optimum
concretes was compared to the control concrete. The results are given in Tables BQ1,
BQ4 and BQ7. Table BQ1 gives the results of compressive strength for control concrete,
Table BQ4 for optimum concrete without fly ash and Table BQ7 gives the results of
optimum concrete with fly ash.
A bar chart showing the rate of strength development at all ages is shown in Figure 4.28.
163
The results for compressive strength of the final mixes for control concrete, optimum
concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash are discussed below.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
1 Day 3 Day 7 Day 14 Day 28 Day 56 Day 90 DayAge (Days)
Com
pres
sive
Stre
ngth
(psi
)CLB OLB OLFB
Figure 4.28: Comparison of Compressive Strength for Bridge Deck Concrete with
Limestone Aggregate The 1 day to 90 day compressive strength of the concretes increased from 19.17
MPa (2781 psi) to 37.68 MPa (5465 psi) for the control limestone bridge deck concrete,
17.02 MPa (2469 psi) to 39.02 MPa (5660 psi) for the optimum limestone bridge deck
concrete without fly ash and from 17.47 MPa (2534 psi) to 43.02 MPa (6240 psi) for
optimum limestone bridge deck concrete with fly ash.
The control concrete had the highest 1-day compressive strength of 19.17 Mpa
(2781 psi). The 1-day compressive strengths for optimum concrete without fly ash and
optimum concrete with fly ash were 11% and 9% less than that of the control concrete.
The 3-day compressive strengths for the control concrete, optimum concrete
without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 25.52 MPa (3701 psi), 24.49
MPa (3552 psi) and 25.59 MPa (3711 psi) respectively. The 3-day compressive strengths
for control concrete and optimum concrete without fly ash were 0.3% and 4.3% less than
that of the optimum concrete with fly ash.
The 7-day compressive strengths for the control concrete, optimum concrete
without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 28.62 MPa (4151 psi), 27.36
164
MPa (3968 psi) and 30.58 MPa (4436 psi) respectively. The 7-day compressive strengths
for control concrete and optimum concrete with fly ash were 5% and 12% more than that
of the optimum concrete without fly ash.
The 14-day compressive strengths for the control concrete, optimum concrete
without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 30.56 MPa (4432 psi), 33.20
MPa (4816 psi) and 36.88 MPa (5349 psi) respectively. The 14-day compressive
strengths for optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were
9% and 21% more than that of the control concrete.
The 28-day compressive strengths for the control concrete, optimum concrete
without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 34.53 MPa (5008 psi), 35.98
MPa (5218 psi) and 38.46 MPa (5578 psi) respectively. The 28-day compressive
strengths for optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were
4% and 11% more than that of the control concrete.
The 56-day compressive strength for the control concrete, optimum concrete
without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 35.76 MPa (5186 psi), 37.44
MPa (5430 psi) and 40.82 MPa (5920 psi) respectively. The 56-day compressive
strengths for optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were
5% and 14% more than that of the control concrete.
The 90-day compressive strengths for the control concrete, optimum concrete
without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 37.68 MPa (5465 psi), 39.02
MPa (5660 psi) and 43.02 MPa (6240 psi) respectively. The 90-day compressive
strengths for optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were
3% and 14% more than that of the control concrete.
4.3.1.2.2 Static Modulus:
Testing was done on 100 mm x 200 mm (4 in. x 8 in.) specimens at 28, 56 and 90
days for static modulus. Three specimens were tested for each mix. The results are given
in Tables BQ10, BQ13 and BQ16. Table BQ10 gives the results of static modulus for
control concrete, Table B13 for optimum concrete without fly ash and Table B16 gives
the results of optimum concrete with fly ash. The corresponding bar chart is shown in
Figure 4.29.
165
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
28 Day 56 Day 90 Day
Age (Days)
Stat
ic M
odul
us (x
106 p
si)
CLB OLB OLFB
Figure 4.29: Comparison of Static Modulus for Bridge Deck Concrete with
Limestone Aggregate
The static modulus values ranged from 3.30 x 104 Mpa (4.79 x 106 psi) to 3.63 x
104 Mpa (5.26 x 106 psi) for control concrete, 3.49 x 104 Mpa (5.07 x 106 psi) to 3.69 x
104 Mpa (5.36 x 106 4 psi) for optimum concrete without fly ash and from 3.70 x 10 Mpa
(5.38 x 106 4 6 psi) to 4.15 x 10 Mpa (6.02 x 10 psi) for optimum concrete with fly ash. The
highest static modulus value was obtained for the optimum concrete with fly ash at 90
days, and was 4.15 x 104 6 Mpa (6.02 x 10 psi).
4.3.1.2.3 Dry Unit Weight:
The dry unit weight results for 1, 3, 7, 14, 28, 56 and 90 days are given in Tables
BL2, BL5 and BL8. The average dry unit weight varied from 2210 Kg/m3 3 (138 lb/ft ) to
2419 Kg/m3 (151 lb/ft3). The control quartzite bridge deck concrete had the lowest dry
unit weight of 2210 Kg/m3 3 (138 lb/ft ) compared to the optimum quartzite bridge deck
concrete without & with fly ash. A bar chart showing dry unit weights at the end of 90
days is shown in Figure 4.30.
166
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Control Optimum Optimum with Fly Ash
Mix
Dry
Uni
t Wei
ght (
lb/ft
3 )
Figure 4.30: Comparison of Dry Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete with
Limestone Aggregate
4.3.1.2.4 Modulus of Rupture (Flexural Strength)
Tests were conducted at 14 days and 28 days to determine the flexural strength of
concrete. Three specimens per mix of size 356 mm x 100 mm x 100 mm (14 in x 4 in x 4
in) were tested for control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum
concrete with fly ash. The results are given in Table BQ10, BQ13 and BQ17. The
corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure 4.31.
The flexural strength of concrete varied from 3.56 Mpa (517 psi) to 4.56 Mpa
(662 psi). The optimum concrete with fly ash had the highest flexural strength compared
to the control concrete and the optimum concrete without fly ash.
The 14 day flexural strengths of control concrete, optimum concrete without fly
ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 3.56 Mpa (517 psi), 3.74 Mpa (542 psi) and
4.23 Mpa (613 psi) respectively. The 14-day flexural strengths for optimum concrete
without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 5% and 18% more than that of
the control concrete.
167
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
14 Day 28 Day
Age (Days)
Flex
ural
Stre
ngth
(psi
)
CLB OLB OLFB
Figure 4.31: Comparison of Flexural Strength for Bridge Deck Concrete with
Limestone Aggregate The 28 day flexural strengths of control concrete, optimum concrete without fly
ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 4.00 Mpa (580 psi), 4.18 Mpa (607 psi) and
4.56 Mpa (662 psi) respectively. The 28-day flexural strength for optimum concrete
without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 5% and 14% respectively more
than that for the control concrete.
4.3.1.2.5 Alkali Aggregate Reactivity:
The mean percentage expansion of the mortar bars exposed to sodium hydroxide
solution was studied. Four specimens of size 286 mm x 25 mm x 25 mm (11.25 in x 1 in
x 1 in) were exposed to the alkali solution. The mean expansion was found at 3, 7, 11 and
14 days for all the concretes. The results for trial mixes in which the cement content was
reduced to 15% are given in Tables FL2 (a), FL5 (a), FL8 (a) of Appendix F. The results
for the final mixes with 10 percent reduction in cement content are given in Tables FL2,
FL5 and FL8 (Appendix F). Table FL2 (a) gives the mean percent expansion for the trial
mix of control concrete, Table FL5 (a) gives mean percent expansion for trial mix of
optimum concrete without fly ash and Table FL8 (a) gives mean percent expansion for
trial mix of optimum concrete with fly ash. Table FL2 gives the mean percent expansion
for final mix of control concrete, Table FL5 gives mean percent expansion for the final
mix of optimum concrete without fly ash and Table FL8 gives mean percent expansion
168
for the final mix of optimum concrete with fly ash. The maximum expansion at the end of
14 days was observed for control concrete, and the minimum was observed for the
optimum concrete with fly ash.
The trial mix control concrete had a percentage expansion of 0.18238%, the trial
mix optimum concrete without fly ash had an expansion of 0.14250%, and the trial mix
optimum concrete with fly ash had a mean expansion of 0.03725%, at the end of 14 days.
The final mix control concrete had a percentage expansion of 0.13625%, the final mix
optimum concrete without fly ash had an expansion of 0.11650%, and final mix optimum
concrete with fly ash had a mean expansion of 0.06975%, at the end of 14 days. The
optimum concrete with fly ash had lesser mean expansion when compared to optimum
concrete without fly ash and control concrete. The optimum concrete mixes performed
better than the control concrete at all ages. The optimum concrete with fly ash had better
resistance to the alkali solution, when compared to the control concrete and optimum
concrete without fly ash. The mean expansions of the trial mixes and final mixes of
control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash, at
all ages are given in Table 4.5.and 4.5.1.
It can be observed from the results that there were reductions of 22% and 79% in
the mean percentage expansions of trial mixes of optimum concrete without fly ash and
optimum concrete with fly ash, when compared to the control concrete at the end of 14
days. From the final mix results it can be observed that there were reductions of 14% and
49% in the mean percentage expansions of mixes of optimum concrete without fly ash
and optimum concrete with fly ash, when compared to the control concrete at the end of
14 days. The addition of fly ash had reduced the mean percentage expansion, and
increased the resistance of concrete to alkali attack. The results are shown in Figure 4.32
and 4.33.
Table 4.5: Summary of mean percent expansion of Alkali Aggregate specimens of trial mixes for Bridge Deck Concrete
Mix ID Mix Description Percent Expansion after3 Days 7 Days 11 Days 14 Days
CLBT - 15% Control Limestone Bridge Deck Trial 0.01088 0.07413 0.15300 0.18239OLBT - 15% Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Trial without Fly Ash 0.00950 0.04563 0.10450 0.14250OFLBT - 15% Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Trial with Fly Ash 0.00825 0.02150 0.03000 0.03725
169
Table 4.5.1: Summary of mean percent expansion of Alkali Aggregate specimens
for Final Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate
Mix ID Mix Description Percent Expansion after3 Days 7 Days 11 Days 14 Days
CLB Control Limestone Bridge Deck 0.01850 0.06788 0.12388 0.13625OLB Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck without Fly Ash 0.01513 0.05538 0.10313 0.11650OFLB Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck with Fly Ash 0.01288 0.02075 0.05925 0.06975
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Age(Days)
Mea
n Ex
pans
ion
(%)
CLBT - 15% OLBT - 15% OLFBT - 15%
Innocous
Deleterious
Innocous & Deleterious
Figure 4.32: Comparison of Alkali Aggregate Reactivity for Trial Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate
170
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Age(Days)
Mea
n Ex
pans
ion
(%)
CLB OLB OLFB
Inno
cous
Del
eter
ious
Inno
cous
&D
elet
erio
us
Figure 4.33: Comparison of Alkali Aggregate Reactivity for Final Bridge Deck
Concrete with Limestone Aggregate
4.3.1.3 Freeze Thaw Resistance:
The pulse time and pulse velocity measured for control concrete, optimum
concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash are given in Tables IL3 and
IL4 (Appendix I). The corresponding graph is shown in Figure 4.34. The pulse velocity
after 300 cycles of freezing and thawing for the control concrete was 4369 m/s (14335
ft/sec), 4434 m/s (14546 ft/sec) for optimum concrete without fly ash and 4521 m/s
(14833 ft/sec) for optimum concrete with fly ash. At 0 cycles (14 days) the pulse velocity
was taken as 100% and the percentage change in pulse velocity was calculated for the
300 cycles (64 days) of freezing and thawing. The percentage change in pulse velocity
for all the three mixes are given in Table IL9 (Appendix I). The control concrete exposed
to freeze thaw cycles exhibited a reduction of pulse velocity from 100% at 0 cycles to
94.95% at 300 cycles. The optimum concrete without fly ash exposed to freeze thaw
cycles exhibited a reduction of pulse velocity from 100% at 0 cycles to 95.42% at 300
cycles. The optimum concrete with fly ash exposed to freeze thaw cycles exhibited
reduction of pulse velocity from 100% at 0 cycles to 95.33% at 300 cycles. The pulse
171
velocities for the specimens subjected to standard curing were also observed. The pulse
velocity after 64 days of standard curing for the control concrete was 4681 m/s (15356
ft/sec), 4727 m/s (15508 ft/sec) for optimum concrete without fly ash and 4806 m/s
(15769 ft/sec) for optimum concrete with fly ash. The control concrete subjected to
standard curing exhibited an increase of pulse velocity from 100% at 14 days to 107.70%
at 64 days. The optimum concrete without fly ash subjected to standard curing exhibited
an increase of pulse velocity from 100% at 14 days to 107.86% at 64 days. The optimum
concrete with fly ash subjected to standard curing exhibited an increase of pulse velocity
from 100% at 14 days to 107.74% at 64 days.
The mean expansions of the specimens subjected to freeze thaw and standard
curing were measured and are given in Table IL10 (Appendix I). The corresponding
graph is shown in Figure 4.35. The mean expansions for control concrete, optimum
concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 0.01975%, 0.01250%
and 0.00875% when exposed to 300 cycles of freezing and thawing. The mean expansion
was greater for the control concrete when compared to the optimum mixes.
14000
14500
15000
15500
16000
16500
17000
17500
18000
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330
Freeze thaw cycles
Puls
e ve
loci
ty(f
t/sec
)
OLB subjected to freeze thaw
OLFB subjected to freeze thaw
CLB subjected to freeze thaw
CLB subjected to standard curing
OLB subjected to standard curing
OLFB subjected to standard curing
Figure 4.34: Change in Pulse Velocity for Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Limestone Aggregates subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing
172
0.000000
0.005000
0.010000
0.015000
0.020000
0.025000
0.030000
0.035000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Freeze Thaw Cycles
Mea
n ex
pans
ion
(%)
CLB subjected to Freeze thaw curing
OLB subjected to Freeze thaw curing
OLFB subjected to Freeze thaw curing
OLFB subjected to Standard curing
OLB subjected Standard curing
CLB subjected to Standard curing
Figure 4.35: Comparison of Mean Expansion for Bridge Deck Concrete specimens
with Limestone Aggregates subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing
The durability factor for all the three mixes were calculated from 0 cycles to 300
cycles of freeze thaw and standard cured specimens. The durability factor for the control
concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash are given
in Table IL14 (Appendix I). The control concrete exposed to freeze thaw cycles exhibited
a reduction in durability factor from 100 at 0 cycles (14 days) to 90.17 at 300 cycles (64
days). The optimum concrete without fly ash exposed to freeze thaw cycles exhibited a
reduction in durability factor from 100 at 0 cycles to 91.05 at 300 cycles. The optimum
concrete with fly ash exposed to freeze thaw cycles exhibited reduction in durability
factor from 100 at 0 cycles to 90.88 at 300 cycles. The durability factors for the
specimens subjected to standard curing were also observed. The control concrete
subjected to standard curing exhibited an increase in durability factor from 100 at 14 days
to 116.00 at 64 days. The optimum concrete without fly ash subjected to standard curing
exhibited an increase in durability factor from 100 at 14 days to 116.34 at 64 days. The
optimum concrete with fly ash subjected to standard curing exhibited an increase in
173
durability factor from 100 at 14 days to 116.08 at 64 days. All the concretes including
control and optimum mixes had durability in the range of 88 – 90 indicating very good
freeze thaw resistance (ASTM C 494 sets the minimum durability factor at 80%). The
mean expansion for optimum concretes was less compared to control concrete when
subjected to freezing and thawing. The mean expansion was very less for all the
concretes and was in the range of 0.00875% - 0.01975%. The accepted failure criterion is
0.1% expansion.
The saturated surface dry absorption coefficient is defined as the ratio of weight
of moisture to the dry weight expressed as percentage. The saturated surface dry
absorption coefficient for the three mixes is shown in Table 4.6. The saturated surface dry
absorption coefficient was calculated for all the mixes after the completion of 300 cycles
of freezing and thawing. The absorption coefficients for control concrete, optimum
concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash after 300 cycles of freezing
and thawing were 2.24%, 2.05% and 1.54 %. The absorption coefficients for control
concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash after 64
days of standard curing were 1.98%, 1.89% and 1.46 %.
Table 4.6: Saturated Surface Dry Absorption Coefficient for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate
Mix ID Specimen No. of cycles Age at Testing Absorption Curing Coefficient
by weight(%)
CLB Freeze Thaw 300 64 2.24Standard 64 1.98
OLB Freeze Thaw 300 64 2.05Standard 64 1.89
OLFB Freeze Thaw 300 64 1.54Standard 64 1.46
174
4.3.2 Mix used for Initial and Final Setting Times, Deicer Scaling and Sulfate
Resistance of Concrete:
4.3.2.1 Fresh Concrete Properties: The trial mixes in which an attempt was made to reduce the cement content by
15% was also used to study the setting times of concrete. The slumps for the three trial
mixes were 76.2 mm (3.0 in.) for trial control concrete, 73.7 mm (2.9 in.) for trial
optimum concrete without fly ash, 101.6 mm (4.0 in) for trial optimum concrete with fly
ash. Mix 3 was used for the study of setting times of final bridge deck concrete. Mix 3
was used to study the results of initial and final setting time, deicer chemicals and sulfate
resistance of concrete. Three mixes were made, control concrete, optimum concrete
without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash. The slumps were 76.2 mm (3.0 in.)
for control concrete, 68.6 mm (2.7 in.) for optimum concrete without fly ash and 76.2
mm (3.0 in.) for optimum concrete with fly ash. For the optimum concrete with fly ash,
there was a replacement of 20% by weight of cement with 25% percent by weight of fly
ash. A medium range water reducer was used for the optimum concrete with fly ash
mixes. The corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure AL69 (Appendix A).
The air content for trial control concrete was 5.8%, 5.2 for trial optimum mix
without fly ash, and 6.8% for trial optimum mix with fly ash. The optimum with fly ash
had higher air content compared to the other two mixes. The corresponding bar chart is
shown in Figure AL45 (Appendix A).
The air content for control concrete was 5.8%, for the optimum mix without fly
ash was 6.0%, and for the optimum mix with fly ash was 6.8%. The optimum with fly ash
had higher air content compared to the other two mixes. The corresponding bar chart is
shown in Figure AL72 (Appendix A).
The unit weights of trial mixes were 2371 kg/m3 3 (148 lb/ft ) for trial control
concrete, 2371 kg/m3 3 (148 lb/ft ) for trial optimum concrete without fly ash and 2323
kg/m3 (145 lb/ft3) for optimum concrete with fly ash. The corresponding bar chart is
shown in Figure AL48 (Appendix A).
The unit weights for final mixes were 2355 kg/m3 (147 lb/ft3) for control concrete,
2371 kg/m3 (148 lb/ft3) for optimum concrete without fly ash and 2371 kg/m3 3 (148 lb/ft )
175
for optimum concrete with fly ash. The corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure AL75
(Appendix A).
The ambient temperature was 21.10 C (70 F) and humidity was 35% during the
mixing of concrete for trial mixes.
The ambient temperature was 21.10 C (70 F) and humidity was 45% during the
mixing of concrete for final bridge deck concrete.
4.3.2.2 Initial and Final Setting Time: The main objective was to determine the initial and final setting times of concrete,
by sieving the mortar from the concrete. The penetration resistances recorded
corresponding to the elapsed times are given in Tables CL4 (a), CL5 (a) and CL6 (a) for
trial bridge deck concrete with limestone aggregate. The penetration resistances recorded
corresponding to the elapsed times are given in Tables CL4, CL5 and CL6 for final
bridge deck concrete with limestone aggregate. The time vs. penetration graphs for trial
mixes are shown in figures CL2 (a), CL5 (a) and CL8 (a) (Appendix C). The time vs.
penetration graphs for final mixes are shown in figures CL2, CL5, CL8 (Appendix
C).The initial setting time for the limestone bridge deck trial mixes ranged from 228
minutes to 368 minutes. The initial setting time for the limestone bridge deck final mixes
ranged from 217 minutes to 366 minutes. For the trial mixes the optimum concrete
without fly ash had lesser initial setting time compared to control and optimum with fly
ash concretes. For the final mixes the control concrete had lesser initial setting time
compared to both the optimum mixes with and without fly ash. The final setting time for
the limestone bridge deck trial mixes ranged from 259 minutes to 393 minutes. The final
setting time for the limestone bridge deck final mixes ranged from 273 minutes to 391
minutes .For the trial mixes the optimum concrete without fly ash had lesser final setting
time compared to control and optimum with fly ash concretes. For the final mixes the
control concrete had lesser final setting time compared to optimum without fly ash and
optimum with fly ash concretes. The summary of the setting times for bridge deck
concrete with limestone aggregates is given in Tables 4.7 and 4.7.1.
. The bar charts for initial and final setting times for both the trial and final bridge
deck concrete with limestone aggregates are shown in Figures 4.36, 4.37, 4.38 and 4.39.
176
Table 4.7: Summary of Initial and Final Setting Times of Trial Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate
Mix ID Mix Description Initial Setting Final Setting
Time Time(mins) (mins)
CLBT Control Limestone Bridge Deck Trial 252 280OLBT - 15% Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Trial without Fly Ash 228 259
OLFBT - 15% Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Trial with Fly Ash 368 393
Table 4.7.1: Summary of Initial and Final Setting Times of Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate
Mix ID Mix Description Initial Setting Final SettingTime Time(mins) (mins)
CLB Control Limestone Bridge Deck 217 273OLB Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck without Fly Ash 260 317
OLFB Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck with Fly Ash 366 391
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
CLBT OLBT - 15% OLFBT - 15%
Mix
Tim
e (m
in)
Figure 4.36: Comparison of Initial Setting Time for Trial Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate
177
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
CLB OLB OLFB
Mix
Tim
e (m
in)
Figure 4.37: Comparison of Initial Setting Time for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
CLBT OLBT - 15% OLFBT - 15%
Mix
Tim
e (m
in)
Figure 4.38: Comparison of Final Setting Time for Trial Bridge Deck Concrete
with Limestone Aggregate
178
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
CLB OLB OLFB
Mix
Tim
e (m
in)
Figure 4.39: Comparison of Final Setting Time for Bridge Deck Concrete
with Limestone Aggregate The addition of fly ash increased the initial and final setting times for bridge deck
concrete with limestone aggregates. The ambient temperature and humidity were noted
for all the mixes.
4.3.2.3 Sulfate Resistance of Concrete:
The mean expansion of mortar bars exposed to sodium sulfate solution having a
pH of 7.2 was studied. Six specimens of size 286 mm x 25 mm x 25 mm (11.25 in x 1 in
x 1 in) were exposed to the sulfate solution and the average expansions of the six
specimens were noted. The results of the mean expansion for bridge deck concrete with
limestone aggregate are given in Tables DL2, DL5 and DL8.
The mean expansions of control, optimum without fly ash and optimum with fly
ash concretes at the end of 15 weeks were 0.02592%, 0.02325% and 0.02108%
respectively. It can be observed that the average expansion of specimens increased with
respect to time. The optimum concrete with fly ash had lesser mean expansion compared
179
to control concrete and optimum concrete without fly ash. It can be concluded that the
addition of fly ash had increased the resistance of concrete to sulfate solution.
The addition of fly ash resists the ettringite formation, which is formed in
hardened concrete that is exposed to sulfate rich environments. The formation of
ettringite causes cracking which will deteriorate the concrete. The addition of fly ash
also reduced the formation of Gypsum (which causes deterioration in concrete) and
increased the resistance to sulfate attack.
There were reductions of 10% and 19% in the mean expansions of optimum
concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash, when compared to that of the
control concrete. The results are shown in Figure 4.40.
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Immersion Age (Weeks)
Mea
n Ex
pans
ion
(%)
CLB OLB OLFB
Figure 4.40: Mean Sulfate Expansions for Bridge Deck Concrete with
Limestone Aggregate
4.3.2.4 Scaling Resistance of Concrete to Deicing Chemicals:
The main aim was to determine the resistance to scaling of concrete surface
exposed to freezing and thawing cycles in the presence of deicing chemicals. Two
specimens of size 355.6 x 152.4 x 152.4 mm (14 x 6 x 6 in.) were subjected to freezing
and thawing cycles in the presence of Calcium Chloride solution. They were subjected to
50 cycles of freezing and thawing. Each cycle had 18 hours of freezing and 6 hours of
thawing. At the end of 50 cycles the scaling resistance was determined visually by
180
comparing with the standard scaling chart given by ASTM. The scaling classification for
the control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly
ash are given in Table 4.8.
Table 4.8: Comparison of Scaling Resistance for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate
Mix ID ASTM Rating ASTM ClassificationSpecimen 1 Specimen 2
CLB 1 1 Very Light ScalingOLB 1 1 Very Light Scaling
OLFB 0 0 No Scaling The optimum concrete with fly ash had performed better than the control concrete
and optimum concrete without fly ash. There was no scaling observed for the optimum
concrete with fly ash. The control concrete and optimum concrete without fly ash had
very light scaling at the end of 50 cycles of freezing and thawing in the presence of
Calcium Chloride solution.
The scaling of the control concrete specimen is shown in Figure 4.41, optimum
concrete without fly ash specimen is shown in Figure 4.42, and the optimum concrete
with fly ash specimen is shown in Figure 4.43. All the three mixes had good scaling
resistance after 50 cycles of freezing and thawing in the presence of deicing chemicals
(calcium chloride solution)
Control Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete
Figure 4.41 : Control Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete – After 50 cycles of Freezing and Thawing in presence of Deicing Chemicals.
181
Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete Without Fly Ash
Figure 4.42: Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash – After 50 cycles of Freezing and Thawing in presence of Deicing Chemicals.
Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash
Figure 4.43: Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash – After 50 cycles of Freezing and Thawing in presence of Deicing Chemicals.
182
4.3.3 Mix used for Rapid Chloride Permeability, Drying Shrinkage
and Creep of Concrete:
4.3.3.1 Fresh Concrete Properties: The trial mixes in which an attempt was made to reduce the cement content by
15% was also used to study and compare their chloride permeability and drying
shrinkage results with the final mix concretes. The slumps for the three trial mixes were
76.2 mm (3.0 in.) for trial control concrete, 73.7 mm (2.9 in.) for trial optimum concrete
without fly ash, 101.6 mm (4.0 in) for trial optimum concrete with fly ash. The fresh
concrete properties and the compressive strengths of the trial mixes are given in Table
AL14 and AL20 of Appendix A. Mix 1 was used for the study of chloride permeability,
drying shrinkage and creep of concrete. Three mixes were made, control concrete,
optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash. The slumps were
38.1 mm (1.5 in.) for control concrete, 55.9 mm (2.2 in.) for optimum concrete without
fly ash and 81.3 mm (3.2 in.) for optimum concrete with fly ash. For the optimum
concrete with fly ash, there was a replacement of 20% by weight of cement with 25% by
weight of fly ash. The corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure AL51 (Appendix A).
The air content for control concrete was 5.4%, for the optimum mix without fly
ash was 5.2%, and for the optimum mix with fly ash was 5.6%. The optimum concrete
with fly ash had higher air content compared to the other two mixes. The corresponding
bar chart is shown in Figure AL54 (Appendix A).
The unit weights were 2371 kg/m3 (148 lb/ft3) for control concrete, 2371 kg/m3
(148 lb/ft3) for optimum concrete without fly ash and 2371 kg/m3 (148 lb/ft3) for
optimum concrete with fly ash. The corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure AL57
(Appendix A).
The ambient temperature was 21.10 C (70 F) and humidity was 30% during the
mixing of concrete.
The 28-day compressive strengths for the control concrete, optimum concrete
without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 34.54 MPa (5010 psi), 35.78
MPa (5620 psi) and 38.75 MPa (6278 psi) respectively. The 28-day compressive
183
strengths for optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were
8% and 25% more than that of the control concrete.
4.3.3.2 Chloride Permeability Test:
Tests were conducted at 56 days and 90 days for the control concrete, optimum
concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash. The results for the trial
mixes are given in Table EL2 (a) and the results for final mixes are given in Table EL2.
At 56 days, the trial control concrete had a chloride permeability value of 7200
coulombs, which is classified as “High”, the trial optimum concrete without fly ash had a
permeability value of 6320 coulombs, which is classified as “High”, and the trial
optimum with fly ash had a permeability value of 3780 coulombs, which is classified as
“Moderate”.
At 56 days, the control concrete had a chloride permeability value of 7120
coulombs, which is classified as “High”, the optimum concrete without fly ash had a
permeability value of 5879 coulombs, which is classified as “High”, and the optimum
with fly ash had a permeability value of 3410 coulombs, which is classified as
“Moderate”.
At 90 days, the trial control concrete had a chloride permeability value of 6980
coulombs, which is classified as “High”, the trial optimum concrete without fly ash had a
permeability value of 5890 coulombs, which is classified as “High”, and the trial
optimum with fly ash had a permeability value of 3470 coulombs, which is classified as
“Moderate”. The bar chart showing the results of chloride permeability at 56 and 90 days
is shown in Figure 4.44.
At 90 days, the control concrete had a chloride permeability value of 6890 coulombs,
which is classified as “High”, the optimum concrete without fly ash had a permeability
value of 5540 coulombs, which is classified as “High”, and the optimum with fly ash had
a permeability value of 3190 coulombs, which is classified as “Moderate”. The bar chart
showing the results of chloride permeability at 56 and 90 days is shown in Figure 4.45.
The addition of fly ash had increased the resistance of concrete towards the
penetration of chloride ions. Of all the three mixes, control concrete, optimum concrete
without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash, the optimum concrete with fly ash
had the highest resistance to the permeability of chloride ions.
184
Figure 4.44: Comparison of Permeability values for trial Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate
Figure 4.45: Comparison of Permeability values for Bridge Deck Concrete
with Limestone Aggregate
185
4.3.3.3 Drying Shrinkage Deformations:
The shrinkage deformations of the concrete specimens for trial and final control
concrete and the optimum concrete mixes were evaluated. Three specimens of size 286
mm x 75 mm x 75 mm (11.25 in x 3 in x 3 in) per mix were used to evaluate the
shrinkage deformations. The measured shrinkage deformations and the duration over
which they have been taken are given in Table GL2 (a) Appendix G. The time vs. drying
shrinkage deformations for the three trial mixes are shown in Figure 4.46, and the time
vs. drying shrinkage deformations for the three final mixes are shown in Figure 4.47.
At the end of 60 days, the trial control concrete had the highest unit shrinkage
strain of 382 x 10-6, optimum concrete without fly ash had 333 x 10-6, and optimum
concrete with fly ash had 297 x 10-6. The corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure
4.48.
At the end of 60 days, the control concrete had the highest unit shrinkage strain of
393 x 10-6 -6, optimum concrete without fly ash had 337 x 10 , and optimum concrete with
fly ash had 293 x 10-6. The corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure 4.49.
The optimum concrete with fly ash had the least shrinkage strain of all the three mixes.
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time in Days
Shrin
kage
Def
orm
atio
n,10
-6 in
/in
CLBT -15% OLBT -15% OLFBT -15%
Figure 4.46: Comparisons of Drying Shrinkage Deformations for Trial Bridge Deck
Concrete with Limestone Aggregates
186
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time in Days
Shrin
kage
Def
orm
atio
n,10
-6 in
/inCLB OLB OLFB
Figure 4.47: Comparisons of Drying Shrinkage Deformations for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregates
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
CLBT - 15% OLBT - 15% OLFBT - 15%
Mix
Shrin
kage
Def
orm
atio
ns ,1
06 in/in
Figure 4.48: Comparisons of Drying Shrinkage Deformations at the end of 90 days
for Trial Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregates
187
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
CLB OLB OLFB
Mix
Shrin
kage
Def
orm
atio
ns ,1
06 in/in
Figure 4.49: Comparisons of Drying Shrinkage Deformations at the end of 90 days
for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregates
There were reductions of 13% and 22% in the shrinkage deformations for trial
optimum concrete without fly ash and trial optimum concrete with fly ash respectively
when compared to that of the control concrete, at the end of 60 days.
There were reductions of 16% and 25% in the shrinkage deformations for final
optimum concrete without fly ash and final optimum concrete with fly ash respectively
when compared to that of the control concrete, at the end of 60 days
The use of well-graded aggregate led to the reduction in cement content and
hence there was a reduction in the drying shrinkage of concrete.
4.3.3.4 Creep and Shrinkage:
The creep strains were determined by subtracting initial elastic strain at loading
and shrinkage strain from the total strain of a loaded specimen. The creep strains plotted
are the average of six values measured on two diametrically opposite faces of three
cylinders. The creep data are given in Tables HL2, HL5 and HL8 (Appendix H).
The stress level applied was 5.57 Mpa (808 psi). The stress-strength ratios for the
control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash
188
were 16%, 15% and 14% respectively for compressive strengths of 34.53 MPa (5008
psi), 35.98 MPa (5218 psi) and 38.46 MPa (5578 psi). The total unit creep strains for
control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash
were 465 x 10-6 in/in, 378 x 10-6 in/in and 358 x 10-6 in/in respectively at the end of 60
days. The control concrete had the highest total unit creep strain of 465 x 10-6 in./in. at an
age of 60 days. The total unit strains and unit shrinkage strains for all the three mixes are
shown in Figures HL2, HL5 and HL7 (Appendix H) and Figure 4.50. The unit specific
creep for all the three mixes is shown in Figure 4.51. The creep rate for all the three
mixes is shown in Figure 4.52.
The unit creep strain and unit specific creep were less for the optimum concrete
with fly ash at any time after loading. From the results obtained, the decrease in creep
strains for the optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash may
be due to a relatively higher rate of strength gain after the day of loading, when compared
to the control concrete.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time in Days
Tota
l Uni
t Stra
in,(1
0-6 in
/in)
OLFB Total Unit StrainOLFB Unit Shrinkage StrainOLB Total Unit StrainOLB Unit Shrinkage StrainCLB Total Unit StrainCLB Unit Shrinkage Strain
Figure 4.50: Comparison of Total Unit Strains and Unit Shrinkage Strains
for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregates
189
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time in Days
Uni
t Spe
cific
Cre
ep, 1
0-6 in
/in/p
si
CLB (5008 psi) Stress-StrengthRatio = 16.13%
OLB(5218 psi) Stress-StrengthRatio = 15.49%
OLFB(5578 psi) Stress StrengthRatio = 14.49%
Figure 4.51: Comparison of Unit Specific Creep for Bridge Deck Concrete
with Limestone Aggregates
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0 1 10 100Time in Days
Cre
ep R
ate,
10-6
CLBOLBOLFB
Figure 4.52: Creep Rate for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregates
190
4.3.3.4.1 Creep Recovery:
Strain recovery measurements after unloading were taken on all the creep
specimens after 60 days of loading. The creep recovery was observed for 10 days for all
the three mixes. The values of strain measurement for the control concrete, optimum
concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash are given in Tables HL11,
HL14 and HL17 (Appendix H) respectively. The elastic recovery and creep recovery for
all the three mixes are shown in Figures HL11, HL14 and HL17 (Appendix H). The creep
strain and creep recovery strain for the three mixes is shown in Figure 4.53.
The initial unit elastic recovery for control concrete, optimum concrete without
fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 127 x 10-6 -6 in/in, 137 x 10 in/in and 140
x 10-6 in/in. The initial unit elastic recoveries for the three mixes were 79%, 83% and
90% of the initial unit elastic strain. The unit creep recoveries for the control concrete,
optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 55 x 10-6, 50 x
10-6 -6 and 48 x 10 . The unit creep recovery for control concrete was 16%, for optimum
concrete without fly ash was 20% and for optimum concrete with fly ash was 22%.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Time in Days
Uni
t Cre
ep S
train
, 10-6
in/in
CLBOLBOLFB
Age at Unloading = 60 Days
Figure 4.53: Comparison of Unit Creep Strain and Unit Elastic Strain and Creep
Recovery on Unloading for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregates
191
Regardless of the strength of concrete, most of the creep recovery takes place
during the first few days after unloading. Thereafter, the rate of creep recovery decreased
considerably. Based on the strain recovery results for approximately same stress-strength
ratio, the initial unit elastic strain recovery and unit creep strain recovery were greater,
the higher the strength of concrete.
4.4 Granite Aggregate:
4.4.1 Mix Used for Strength Development, Sulfate Resistance to Concrete and Chloride Permeability: 4.4.1.1 Fresh Concrete Properties:
Mix 1 was used for the study of strength development of concrete, sulfate
resistance to concrete and chloride permeability. Three mixes were made, control
concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash. The
slumps were 71.1 mm (2.8 in.) for control concrete, 38.1 mm (1.5 in.) for optimum
concrete without fly ash and 25.4 mm (1 in.) for optimum concrete with fly ash. There
was a replacement of 20% by weight of cement with 25% by weight of fly ash for the
optimum concrete with fly ash mix. A medium range water reducer was used for the
optimum concrete with fly ash mixes. The bar chart is shown in Figure 4.54.
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
Control Optimum without Fly Ash Optimum with Fly Ash
Mix
Slum
p (in
.)
Figure 4.54: Comparison of Slump for Bridge Deck Concrete (Mix 1) with Granite
Aggregates
192
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Control Optimum without Fly Ash Optimum with Fly Ash
Mix
Air
Con
tent
(%)
Figure 4.55: Comparison of Air Content for Bridge Deck Concrete (Mix 1)
with Granite Aggregates
The air content for control concrete was 6.2%, for the optimum mix without fly
ash was 5.4%, and for the optimum mix with fly ash was 5.4%. The control concrete had
higher air content compared to the optimum concretes. The bar chart is shown in Figure
4.55.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Control Optimum without Fly Ash Optimum with Fly Ash
Mix
Uni
t Wei
ght (
lb/ft
3 )
Figure 4.56: Comparison of Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete (Mix 1)
with Granite Aggregates
193
The air content for control concrete was 6.2%, for the optimum mix without fly
ash was 5.4%, and for the optimum mix with fly ash was 5.4%. The control concrete had
higher air content compared to the optimum concretes. The bar chart is shown in Figure
4.55.
The unit weights were 2323 kg/m3 (144 lb/ft3) for control concrete, 2355 kg/m3
(147 lb/ft3) for optimum concrete without fly ash and 2371 kg/m3 (148 lb/ft3) for
optimum concrete with fly ash. The comparison is shown in Figure 4.56.
The ambient temperature was 18.30 C (65 F) for all the mixes. The humidity was
40% for all the mixes. The concrete temperatures for the trial mixes are given in Table
AG15 and for the final mixes are given in Table AG18.
4.4.1.2 Hardened Concrete Properties:
4.4.1.2.1 Compressive Strength:
Testing for the compressive strength of trial mixes was done at 1, 3, 7, 14 and 28
days. The 28-day strength results are given in Table AG21. The bar chart is shown in
Figure BG3. The final mix was selected based on the required workability and strength.
Tests were carried out at 1, 3, 7, 14, 28, 56 and 90 days with three cylinders per
mix to study the strength development of the control concrete, optimum concrete without
fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash. The strength development of the optimum
concretes was compared to the control concrete. The results are given in Tables BG3,
BG6 and BG9. Table BG3 gives the results of compressive strength for control concrete,
Table BG6 for optimum concrete without fly ash and Table BG9 gives the results of
optimum concrete with fly ash.
A bar chart showing the rate of strength development at all ages is shown in Figure 4.57.
194
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
1 Day 3 Day 7 Day 14 Day 28 Day 56 Day 90 Day
Age (Days)
Com
pres
sive
Str
engt
h (p
si)
CGB OGB OGFB
Figure 4.57: Comparison of Compressive Strengths for Bridge Deck Concrete
with Granite Aggregate
The results for compressive strength of the final mixes for control concrete, optimum
concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash are discussed below.
The 1 day to 90 day compressive strength of the concretes increased from 14.50
MPa (2101 psi) to 38.25 MPa (5543 psi) for the control granite bridge deck concrete,
16.13 MPa (2337 psi) to 39.98 MPa (5794 psi) for the optimum granite bridge deck
concrete without fly ash and from 17.28 MPa (2504 psi) to 44.23 MPa (6410 psi) for
optimum granite bridge deck concrete with fly ash.
The optimum concrete with fly ash had the highest 1-day compressive strength of
17.28 Mpa (2504 psi). The 1-day compressive strengths for optimum concrete without fly
ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 11% and 19% more than that of the control
concrete.
The 3-day compressive strengths for the control concrete, optimum concrete without
fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 21.28 MPa (3084 psi), 24.12 MPa (3496
psi) and 26.97 MPa (3909 psi) respectively. The 3-day compressive strengths for
195
optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 13% and 27%
more than that of the control concrete.
The 7-day compressive strengths for the control concrete, optimum concrete without
fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 27.62 MPa (4002 psi), 30.29 MPa (4390
psi) and 32.38 MPa (4693 psi) respectively. The 7-day compressive strengths for
optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 10% and 17%
more than that of the control concrete.
The 14-day compressive strengths for the control concrete, optimum concrete without
fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 31.29 MPa (4534 psi), 34.74 MPa (5034
psi) and 38.23 MPa (5540 psi) respectively. The 14-day compressive strengths for
optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 11% and 22%
more than that of the control concrete.
The 28-day compressive strengths for the control concrete, optimum concrete without
fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 34.51 MPa (5001 psi), 37.54 MPa (5440
psi) and 39.70 MPa (5753 psi) respectively. The 28-day compressive strengths for
optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 9% and 15%
more than that of the control concrete.
The 56-day compressive strength for the control concrete, optimum concrete without
fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 36.11 MPa (5233 psi), 38.37 MPa (5560
psi) and 42.57 MPa (6170 psi) respectively. The 56-day compressive strengths for
optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 6% and 18%
more than that of the control concrete.
The 90-day compressive strengths for the control concrete, optimum concrete without
fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 38.25 MPa (5543 psi), 39.98 MPa (5794
psi) and 44.23 MPa (6410 psi) respectively. The 90-day compressive strengths for
optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 5% and 16%
more than that of the control concrete.
196
4.4.1.2.2 Static Modulus:
Testing was done at 28, 56 and 90 days for static modulus. Three specimens were
tested for each mix. The results are given in Tables BG3, BG6 and BG9. Table BG3
gives the results of static modulus for control concrete, Table BG6 for optimum concrete
without fly ash and Table BG9 gives the results of optimum concrete with fly ash. The
corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure 4.58.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
28 Day 56 Day 90 Day
Age (Days)
Stat
ic M
odul
us (x
106 p
si)
CGB OGB OGFB
Figure 4.58: Comparison of Static Modulus for Bridge Deck Concrete
with Granite Aggregates The static modulus values ranged from 3.30 x 104 Mpa (4.78 x 106 psi) to 3.68 x
104 Mpa (5.33 x 106 psi) for control concrete, 3.54 x 104 Mpa (5.13 x 106 psi) to 3.75 x
104 Mpa (5.43 x 106 4 psi) for optimum concrete without fly ash and from 3.75 x 10 Mpa
(5.43 x 106 4 6 psi) to 4.22 x 10 Mpa (6.11 x 10 psi) for optimum concrete with fly ash. The
highest static modulus value was obtained for the optimum concrete with fly ash at 90
days, and was 4.22 x 104 6 Mpa (6.11 x 10 psi).
4.4.1.2.3 Dry Unit Weight:
The dry unit weight results for 1, 3, 7, 14, 28, 56 and 90 days are given in Tables
BG3, BG6 and BG9. The average dry unit weight varied from 2211 Kg/m3 (138 lb/ft3) to
197
2323 Kg/m3 (145 lb/ft3). The control granite bridge deck concrete had the lowest dry unit
weight of 2211 Kg/m3 (138 lb/ft3) compared to the optimum granite bridge deck concrete
without & with fly ash. A bar chart showing dry unit weights at the end of 90 days is
shown in Figure 4.59.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Control Optimum Optimum with Fly Ash
Mix
Dry
Uni
t Wei
ght (
lb/ft
3 )
Figure 4.59: Comparison of Dry Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete
with Granite Aggregates 4.4.1.2.4 Modulus of Rupture (Flexural Strength)
Tests were conducted at 14 days and 28 days to determine the flexural strength of
concrete. Three specimens per mix of size 356 mm x 100 mm x 100 mm (14 in x 4 in x 4
in) were tested for control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum
concrete with fly ash. The results are given in Table BG12, BG15 and BG18. The
corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure 4.60.
The flexural strength of concrete varied from 3.67 Mpa (532 psi) to 4.73 Mpa
(685 psi). The optimum concrete with fly ash had the highest flexural strength compared
to the control concrete and the optimum concrete without fly ash.
The 14 day flexural strengths of control concrete, optimum concrete without fly
ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 3.67 Mpa (532 psi), 3.91 Mpa (567 psi) and
198
4.36 Mpa (632 psi) respectively. The 14-day flexural strengths for optimum concrete
without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 7% and 18% more than that of
the control concrete.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
14 Day 28 DayAge (Days)
Flex
ural
Str
engt
h (p
si)
CGB OGB OGFB
Figure 4.60: Comparison of Flexural Strengths for Bridge Deck Concrete
with Granite Aggregates The 28 day flexural strengths of control concrete, optimum concrete without fly
ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 4.20 Mpa (608 psi), 4.34 Mpa (629 psi) and
4.73 Mpa (685 psi) respectively. The 28-day flexural strength for optimum concrete
without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 4% and 13% respectively more
than that for the control concrete.
4.4.1.3 Sulfate Resistance:
The mean expansion of mortar bars exposed to sodium sulfate solution having a pH
of 7.2 was studied. Six specimens of size 286 mm x 25 mm x 25 mm (11.25 in x 1 in x 1
in) were exposed to the sulfate solution and the average expansions of the six specimens
were noted. The results of the mean expansion for bridge deck concrete with granite
aggregate are given in Tables DG3, DG6 and DG9.
The mean expansions of control, optimum without fly ash and optimum with fly ash
concretes at the end of 15 weeks were 0.02833%, 0.02458% and 0.02233% respectively.
199
It can be observed that the average expansion of specimens increased with respect to
time. The optimum concrete with fly ash had lesser mean expansion compared to control
concrete and optimum concrete without fly ash. It can be concluded that the addition of
fly ash had increased the resistance of concrete to sulfate solution.
There were reductions of 13% and 21% in the mean expansions of optimum concrete
without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash, when compared to that of the control
concrete. The results are shown in Figure 4.61.
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16Immersion Age (Weeks)
Mea
n E
xpan
sion
(%)
CGB OGB OGFB
Figure 4.61: Mean Sulfate Expansion for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite
Aggregates The addition of fly ash resists the ettringite formation, which is formed in
hardened concrete that is exposed to sulfate rich environments. The formation of
ettringite causes cracking which will deteriorate the concrete. The addition of fly ash
also reduced the formation of Gypsum (which causes deterioration in concrete) and
increased the resistance to sulfate attack.
4.4.1.4 Chloride Permeability Test:
Tests were conducted at 56 days and 90 days for the control concrete, optimum
concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash. The results are given in
200
Table EG3. The bar chart showing the results of chloride permeability at 56 and 90 days
is shown in Figure 4.62.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Control Optimum without Fly Ash Optimum with Fly AshMix
Perm
eabi
lity
(Cou
lom
bs)
At 56 Days At 90 Days
Figure 4.62: Comparison of Chloride Permeability values for Bridge Deck Concrete
with Granite Aggregates
At 56 days, the control concrete had a chloride permeability value of 7432 coulombs,
which is classified as “High”, the optimum concrete without fly ash had a permeability
value of 6230 coulombs, which is classified as “High”, and the optimum with fly ash had
a permeability value of 3905 coulombs, which is classified as “Moderate”.
At 90 days, the control concrete had a chloride permeability value of 7132
coulombs, which is classified as “High”, the optimum concrete without fly ash had a
permeability value of 5900 coulombs, which is classified as “High”, and the optimum
with fly ash had a permeability value of 3648 coulombs, which is classified as
“Moderate”.
The addition of fly ash had increased the resistance of concrete towards the
penetration of chloride ions. Of all the three mixes, control concrete, optimum concrete
without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash, the optimum concrete with fly ash
had the highest resistance to the permeability of chloride ions.
201
4.4.2 Mix used for Initial and Final Setting Times, Alkali Aggregate Reactivity and Freeze Thaw Resistance: 4.4.2.1 Fresh Concrete Properties:
Mix 2 was used for the study of initial and final setting times, alkali aggregate
reactivity and freeze thaw resistance. Three mixes were made, control concrete, optimum
concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash. The slumps were 38.1 mm
(1.5 in.) for control concrete, 38.1 mm (1.5 in.) for optimum concrete without fly ash and
25.4 mm (1.0 in.) for optimum concrete with fly ash. There was a replacement of 20% by
weight of cement with 25% by weight of fly ash for the optimum concrete with fly ash
mix. A medium range water reducer was used for the optimum concrete with fly ash
mixes. The corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure AG52 (Appendix A).
The air content for control concrete was 5.2%, for the optimum mix without fly ash
was 5.6%, and for the optimum mix with fly ash was 5.4%. The optimum without fly ash
had higher air content compared to the other two mixes. The corresponding bar chart is
shown in Figure AG55 (Appendix A).
The unit weights were 2371 kg/m3 (148 lb/ft3) for control concrete, 2339 kg/m3
(146 lb/ft3) for optimum concrete without fly ash and 2355 kg/m3 (147 lb/ft3) for
optimum concrete with fly ash. The corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure AG58
(Appendix A).
The ambient temperature was 21.10 C (70 F) and humidity was 45% during the
mixing of concrete.
The 28-day compressive strengths for the control concrete, optimum concrete
without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 34.74 MPa (5034 psi), 36.58
MPa (5301 psi) and 38.23 MPa (5540 psi) respectively. The 28-day compressive
strengths for optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were
5% and 10% more than that of the control concrete.
202
4.4.2.2 Initial and Final Setting Times
The main objective was to determine the initial and final setting times of concrete, by
sieving the mortar from the concrete. The penetration resistances recorded corresponding
to the elapsed times are given in Tables CG7, CG8 and CG9 for bridge deck concrete
with granite aggregate. The time vs. penetration graphs are shown in figures CG3, CG6
and CG9 (Appendix C). The initial setting time for the granite bridge deck mixes ranged
from 216 minutes to 361 minutes. The optimum concrete with fly ash had greater initial
setting time compared to control concrete and optimum concrete with fly ash. The final
setting times for the granite bride deck mixes ranged from 241 minutes to 392 minutes.
The optimum concrete with fly ash with granite aggregate had greater final setting time
compared to the control concrete and optimum concrete with fly ash. The summary of the
setting times for bridge deck concrete is given in Table 4.9.
The optimum granite bridge deck concrete with fly ash had higher initial and final
setting times compared to both control concrete and optimum concrete without fly ash.
Among the three mixes for bridge deck concrete, the control concrete had lesser initial
and final setting times when compared to the optimum granite bridge deck concrete
without fly ash. The bar charts for initial and final setting times for bridge deck concrete
are shown in Figures 4.63 and 4.64.
Table 4.9: Summary of Initial and Final Setting Times for Bridge Deck Concrete
With Granite Aggregates
MIX ID Initial Setting Final SettingTime Time(mins) (mins)
CGB Control Granite Bridge Deck Concrete 216 241
OGB Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash 241 272
OGFB Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash 261 392
Mix Description
203
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Control Optimum without Fly Ash Optimum with Fly Ash
Mix
Initi
al S
ettin
g T
ime
(min
s)
Figure 4.63: Comparison of Initial Setting Times for Bridge Deck Concrete
with Granite Aggregates
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Control Optimum without Fly Ash Optimum with Fly Ash
Fina
l Set
ting
Tim
e (m
ins)
Figure 4.64: Comparison of Final Setting Times for Bridge Deck Concrete
with Granite Aggregates The addition of fly ash increased the initial and final setting times for bridge deck
concrete with granite aggregates. The ambient temperature and humidity were noted for
all the mixes.
204
4.4.2.3 Alkali Aggregate Reactivity:
The mean percentage expansion of the mortar bars exposed to sodium hydroxide
solution was studied. Four specimens of size 286 mm x 25 mm x 25 mm (11.25 in x 1 in
x 1 in) were exposed to the alkali solution. The mean expansion was found at 3, 7, 11 and
14 days for all the concretes. The results are given in Tables FG3, FG6 and FG9
(Appendix F). Table FG3 gives the mean percent expansion for the control concrete,
Table FG6 gives mean percent expansion for the optimum concrete without fly ash and
Table FG9 gives mean percent expansion for the optimum concrete with fly ash. The
maximum expansion at the end of 14 days was observed for control concrete, and the
minimum was observed for the optimum concrete with fly ash.
The control concrete had a percentage expansion of 0.17613%, the optimum
concrete without fly ash had an expansion of 0.13450%, and optimum concrete with fly
ash had a mean expansion of 0.04625%, at the end of 14 days. The optimum concrete
with fly ash had lesser mean expansion when compared to optimum concrete without fly
ash and control concrete. The optimum concrete mixes performed better than the control
concrete at all ages. The optimum concrete with fly ash had better resistance to the alkali
solution, when compared to the control concrete and optimum concrete without fly ash.
The mean expansions of the control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and
optimum concrete with fly ash, at all ages are given in Table 4.10.
Table 4.10: Summary of Mean Percent Expansion of Alkali Aggregate Specimens
for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates
Mix ID3 Days 7 Days 11 Days 14 Days
CGB Control Granite Bridge Deck Concrete 0.01875 0.04725 0.13625 0.17613
OGB Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash 0.01575 0.03775 0.10288 0.1345
OGFB Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash 0.01100 0.03125 0.04013 0.04625
Mix Description Percent Expansion After
It can be observed from the results that there were reductions of 24% and 74% in
the mean percentage expansions of optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum
concrete with fly ash, when compared to the control concrete at the end of 14 days. The
205
addition of fly ash had reduced the mean percentage expansion, and increased the
resistance of concrete to alkali attack. The results are shown in Figure 4.65.
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Age(Days)
Mea
n E
xpan
sion
(%)
CGB OGB OGFB
Inno
cous
Del
eter
ious
Inno
cous
&D
elet
erio
us
Figure 4.65: Comparison of Alkali Aggregate Reactivity for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates
4.4.2.4 Freeze Thaw Resistance:
The pulse time and pulse velocity measured for control concrete, optimum
concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash are given in Tables IG5 and
IG6 (Appendix I). The corresponding graph is shown in Figure 4.66. The pulse velocity
after 300 cycles of freezing and thawing for the control concrete was 4410 m/s (14469
ft/sec), 4475 m/s (14683 ft/sec) for optimum concrete without fly ash and 4532 m/s
(14870 ft/sec) for optimum concrete with fly ash. At 0 cycles (14 days) the pulse velocity
was taken as 100% and the percentage change in pulse velocity was calculated for the
300 cycles (64 days) of freezing and thawing. The percentage change in pulse velocity
for all the three mixes are given in Table IG11 (Appendix I). The control concrete
exposed to freeze thaw cycles exhibited a reduction of pulse velocity from 100% at 0
cycles to 94.91% at 300 cycles. The optimum concrete without fly ash exposed to freeze
thaw cycles exhibited a reduction of pulse velocity from 100% at 0 cycles to 95.15% at
300 cycles. The optimum concrete with fly ash exposed to freeze thaw cycles exhibited
206
reduction of pulse velocity from 100% at 0 cycles to 95.16% at 300 cycles. The pulse
velocities for the specimens subjected to standard curing were also observed. The pulse
velocity after 64 days of standard curing for the control concrete was 4700 m/s (15420
ft/sec), 4769 m/s (15652 ft/sec) for optimum concrete without fly ash and 4878 m/s
(16012 ft/sec) for optimum concrete with fly ash. The control concrete subjected to
standard curing exhibited an increase of pulse velocity from 100% at 14 days to 106.99%
at 64 days. The optimum concrete without fly ash subjected to standard curing exhibited
an increase of pulse velocity from 100% at 14 days to 107.27% at 64 days. The optimum
concrete with fly ash subjected to standard curing exhibited an increase of pulse velocity
from 100% at 14 days to 107.86% at 64 days.
The mean expansions of the specimens subjected to freeze thaw and standard
curing were measured and are given in Table IG12 (Appendix I). The corresponding
graph is shown in Figure 4.67. The mean expansions for control concrete, optimum
concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 0.02925%, 0.01875%
and 0.01350% when exposed to 300 cycles of freezing and thawing. The mean expansion
was greater for the control concrete when compared to the optimum mixes.
14000
14500
15000
15500
16000
16500
17000
17500
18000
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330
Freeze thaw cycles
Puls
e ve
loci
ty(f
t/sec
)
OGB concrete subjected to freeze thaw
OGFB concrete subjected to freeze thaw
CGB concrete subjected to freeze thaw
CGB concrete subjected to standard curing
OGB concrete subjected to standard curing
OGFB concrete subjected to standard curing
Figure 4.66: Change in Pulse Velocity for Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Granite Aggregate subjected To Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing
207
0.000000
0.005000
0.010000
0.015000
0.020000
0.025000
0.030000
0.035000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350Freeze Thaw Cycles
Mea
n ex
pans
ion
(%)
CGB concrete subjected to Freeze Thaw CyclesOGB concrete subjected to Freeze Thaw CyclesOGFB concrete subjected to Freeze Thaw CyclesOGFB concrete subjected to Standard CuringOGB concrete subjected Standard CuringCGB concrete subjected to Standard Curing
Figure 4.67: Comparison of Mean Expansion for Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens
with Granite Aggregate Subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing
The durability factor for all the three mixes were calculated from 0 cycles to 300
cycles of freeze thaw and standard cured specimens. The durability factor for the control
concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash are given
in Table IG15 (Appendix I). The control concrete exposed to freeze thaw cycles exhibited
a reduction in durability factor from 100 at 0 cycles (14 days) to 90.08 at 300 cycles (64
days). The optimum concrete without fly ash exposed to freeze thaw cycles exhibited a
reduction in durability factor from 100 at 0 cycles to 90.54 at 300 cycles. The optimum
concrete with fly ash exposed to freeze thaw cycles exhibited reduction in durability
factor from 100 at 0 cycles to 90.56 at 300 cycles. The durability factors for the
specimens subjected to standard curing were also observed. The control concrete
subjected to standard curing exhibited an increase in durability factor from 100 at 14 days
to 114.48 at 64 days. The optimum concrete without fly ash subjected to standard curing
exhibited an increase in durability factor from 100 at 14 days to 115.06 at 64 days. The
optimum concrete with fly ash subjected to standard curing exhibited an increase in
durability factor from 100 at 14 days to 116.34 at 64 days. All the concretes including
control and optimum mixes had durability in the range of 90-91 indicating very good
freeze thaw resistance (ASTM C 494 sets the minimum durability factor at 80%). The
208
mean expansion for optimum concretes was less compared to control concrete when
subjected to freezing and thawing. The mean expansion was very less for all the
concretes and was in the range of 0.00925% - 0.01925%. The accepted failure criterion is
0.1% expansion.
The saturated surface dry absorption coefficient is defined as the ratio of weight
of moisture to the dry weight expressed as percentage. The saturated surface dry
absorption coefficient for the three mixes is shown in Table 4.11. The saturated surface
dry absorption coefficient was calculated for all the mixes after the completion of 300
cycles of freezing and thawing. The absorption coefficients for control concrete, optimum
concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash after 300 cycles of freezing
and thawing were 2.32%, 1.97% and 1.65 %. The absorption coefficients for control
concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash after 64
days of standard curing were 2.01%, 1.82% and 1.58 %.
Table 4.11: Saturated Surface Dry Absorption Coefficient for Bridge Deck Concrete
With Granite Aggregate
Mix Specimen No of cycles Age at Testing Absorption ID Curing Coefficient
(Days) by weight(%)
CGB Freeze Thaw 300 64 2.32
Standard 64 2.01
OGB Freeze Thaw 300 64 1.97
Standard 64 1.82
OGFB Freeze Thaw 300 64 1.65
Standard 64 1.58
* Standard Curing - Specimens placed in the Moist Curing room with 100% Humidity* Freeze Thaw - Specimens subjected to Freeze Thaw Cycles
4.4.3 Mix used for Drying Shrinkage and Deicer Scaling Resistance:
4.4.3.1 Fresh Concrete Properties:
Mix 3 was used for the study of drying shrinkage and deicer scaling resistance of
concrete. Three mixes were made, control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash
and optimum concrete with fly ash. The slumps were 58.4 mm (2.3 in.) for control
209
concrete, 25.4 mm (1.0 in.) for optimum concrete without fly ash and 33.0 mm (1.3 in.)
for optimum concrete with fly ash. There was a replacement of 20% by weight of cement
with 25% by weight of fly ash for the optimum concrete with fly ash mix. A medium
range water reducer was used for the optimum concrete with fly ash mixes. The
corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure AG52 (Appendix A).
The air content for control concrete was 5.6%, for the optimum mix without fly ash
was 5.4%, and for the optimum mix with fly ash was 5.2%. The optimum with fly ash
had least air content compared to the other two mixes. The corresponding bar chart is
shown in Figure AG55 (Appendix A).
The unit weights were 2323 kg/m3 (145 lb/ft3) for control concrete, 2339 kg/m3
(146 lb/ft3) for optimum concrete without fly ash and 2323 kg/m3 (145 lb/ft3) for
optimum concrete with fly ash. The corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure AG58
(Appendix A).
The ambient temperature was 26.70 C (80 F) and humidity was 45% during the
mixing of concrete.
The 28-day compressive strengths for the control concrete, optimum concrete
without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 34.74 MPa (5100 psi), 36.58
MPa (5481 psi) and 38.23 MPa (5812 psi) respectively. The 28-day compressive
strengths for optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were
7% and 14% more than that of the control concrete
4.4.3.2 Drying Shrinkage Deformations:
The shrinkage deformations of the concrete specimens for control concrete and
the optimum concrete mixes were evaluated. Three specimens of size 286 mm x 75 mm x
75 mm (11.25 in x 3 in x 3 in) per mix were used to evaluate the shrinkage deformations.
The measured shrinkage deformations and the duration over which they have been taken
are given in Table GG3. The time vs. drying shrinkage deformations for the three mixes
are shown in Figure 4.68.
At the end of 60 days, the control concrete had the highest unit shrinkage strain of
397 x 10-6 -6, optimum concrete without fly ash had 335 x 10 , and optimum concrete with
fly ash had 293 x 10-6. The corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure 4.69. The
optimum concrete with fly ash had the least shrinkage strain of all the three mixes.
210
There were reductions of 15% and 27% in the shrinkage deformations for
optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash respectively when
compared to that of the control concrete, at the end of 60 days. The use of well-graded
aggregate led to the reduction in cement content and hence there was a reduction in the
drying shrinkage of concrete.
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 30 60 9
Time in Da
0
ys
Shri
nkag
e D
efor
mat
ion,
10-6
in/in
CGB OGB OGFB
Figure 4.68: Comparison of Drying Shrinkage Deformation for Bridge Deck Concrete
with Granite Aggregates
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Control Optimum without Fly Ash Optimum with Fly Ash
Mix
Shri
nkag
e D
efor
mat
ions
, 10-6
in./i
n.
Figure 4.69: Comparison of Drying Shrinkage Deformations at the end of 60 Days
for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates
211
4.4.3.3 Scaling Resistance of Concrete to Deicing Chemicals:
The main aim was to determine the resistance to scaling of concrete surface
exposed to freezing and thawing cycles in the presence of deicing chemicals. Two
specimens of size 355.6 x 152.4 x 152.4 mm (14 x 6 x 6 in.) were subjected to freezing
and thawing cycles in the presence of Calcium Chloride solution. They were subjected to
50 cycles of freezing and thawing. Each cycle had 18 hours of freezing and 6 hours of
thawing. At the end of 50 cycles the scaling resistance was determined visually by
comparing with the standard scaling chart given by ASTM. The scaling classification for
the control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly
ash are given in Table 4.12.
Table 4.12: Comparison of Scaling Resistance for Bridge Deck Concrete with
Granite Aggregate Mix ID ASTM Classification
Specimen 1
CGB 1 Very Light Scaling
OGB 0 No Scaling
OGFB 0 No Scaling
ASTM RatingSpecimen 2
1
0
0
The standard ASTM classification chart is shown in Figure 4.14. The optimum
concrete with fly ash and optimum concrete without fly ash had performed better than the
control concrete. There was no scaling observed for the optimum concretes with and
without fly ash. The control concrete had very light scaling at the end of 50 cycles of
freezing and thawing in the presence of Calcium Chloride solution.
The scaling of the control concrete specimen is shown in Figure 4.70, optimum
concrete without fly ash specimen is shown in Figure 4.71, and the optimum concrete
with fly ash specimen is shown in Figure 4.72. All the three mixes had good scaling
resistance after 50 cycles of freezing and thawing in the presence of deicing chemicals
(calcium chloride solution).
212
Figure 4.70: Control Granite Bridge Deck Concrete – after 50 Cycles of Freezing and Thawing in the presence of Deicing Chemicals
Figure 4.71: Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash – after 50 Cycles of Freezing and Thawing in the presence of Deicing Chemicals
213
Figure 4.72: Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash – after 50 Cycles of Freezing and Thawing in the presence of Deicing Chemicals
4.4.4 Mix used for Creep and Shrinkage of Concrete:
4.4.4.1 Fresh Concrete Properties:
Mix 4 was used for the study of creep of concrete. Three mixes were made, control
concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash. The
slumps were 76.2 mm (3.0 in.) for control concrete, 88.9 mm (3.5 in.) for optimum
concrete without fly ash and 50.8 mm (2.0 in.) for optimum concrete with fly ash. There
was a replacement of 20% by weight of cement with 25% by weight of fly ash for the
optimum concrete with fly ash mix. A medium range water reducer was used for the
optimum concrete with fly ash mixes. The corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure
AG70 (Appendix A).
The air content for control concrete was 6.4%, for the optimum mix without fly ash
was 6.6%, and for the optimum mix with fly ash was 6.8%. The optimum concrete with
fly ash had the highest air content compared to the other two mixes. The corresponding
bar chart is shown in Figure BAG73 (Appendix A).
214
The unit weights were 2307 kg/m3 (144 lb/ft3) for control concrete, 2307 kg/m3
(144 lb/ft3) for optimum concrete without fly ash and 2291 kg/m3 (143 lb/ft3) for
optimum concrete with fly ash. The corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure AG76
(Appendix A).
The ambient temperature was 26.70 C (80 F) and humidity was 45% during the
mixing of concrete.
The 28-day compressive strengths for the control concrete, optimum concrete
without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 34.74 MPa (5001 psi), 36.58
MPa (5440 psi) and 38.23 MPa (5753 psi) respectively. The 28-day compressive
strengths for optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were
9% and 15% more than that of the control concrete.
4.4.4.2 Creep and Shrinkage
The creep strains were determined by subtracting initial elastic strain at loading
and shrinkage strain from the total strain of a loaded specimen. The creep strains plotted
are the average of six values measured on two diametrically opposite faces of three
cylinders. The creep data are given in Tables HG3, HG6 and HG9 (Appendix H).
The stress level applied was 5.51 Mpa (808 psi). The stress-strength ratios for the
control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash
were 16%, 15% and 14% respectively for compressive strengths of 34.74 MPa (5001
psi), 36.58 MPa (5440 psi) and 38.23 MPa (5753 psi). The total unit creep strains for
control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash
were 480 x 10-6 in/in, 387 x 10-6 in/in and 358 x 10-6 in/in respectively at the end of 60
days. The control concrete had the highest total unit creep strain of 480 x 10-6 in. /in. at
an age of 60 days. The total unit strains and unit shrinkage strains for all the three mixes
are shown in Figures HG3, HG6 and HG9 (Appendix H) and Figure 4.73. The unit
specific creep for all the three mixes is shown in Figure 4.74. The creep rate for all the
three mixes is shown in Figure 4.75.
The unit creep strain and unit specific creep were less for the optimum concrete
with fly ash at any time after loading. From the results obtained, the decrease in creep
strains for the optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash may
215
be due to a relatively higher rate of strength gain after the day of loading, when compared
the control concrete.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 9
Time in Days
Tot
al U
nit S
trai
n,(1
0-6 in
/in)
0
OGFB Total Unit StrainOGFB Unit Shrinkage StrainOGB Total Unit StrainOGB Unit Shrinkage StrainCGB Total Unit StrainCGB Unit Shrinkage Strain
Figure 4.73: Comparison of Total Unit Strains and Unit Shrinkage Strains for
Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Time in Days
Uni
t Spe
cific
Cre
ep, 1
0-6 in
/in/p
si
70
CGB (5001 psi) Stress-StrengthRatio = 16.16%
OGB(5440 psi) Stress-StrengthRatio = 14.85%
OGFB(5753 psi) Stress StrengthRatio = 14.05%
Figure 4.74: Comparison of Unit Specific Creep for Bridge Deck Concrete with
Granite Aggregates
216
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
0 1 10Time in Days
Cre
ep R
ate,
10-
6
100
CGB
OGB
OGFB
Figure 4.75: Creep Rate for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates
4.4.4.3 Creep Recovery
Strain recovery measurements after unloading were taken on all the creep
specimens after 60 days of loading. The creep recovery was observed for 10 days for all
the three mixes. The values of strain measurement for the control concrete, optimum
concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash are given in Tables HG12,
HG15 and HG18 (Appendix H) respectively. The elastic recovery and creep recovery for
all the three mixes are shown in Figures HG12, HG15 and HG18 (Appendix H). The
creep strain and creep recovery strain for the three mixes is shown in Figure 4.76.
The initial unit elastic recovery for control concrete, optimum concrete without
fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 130 x 10-6 -6 in/in, 139 x 10 in/in and 143
x 10-6 in/in. The initial unit elastic recoveries for the three mixes were 86%, 90% and
92% of the initial unit elastic strain. The unit creep recoveries for the control concrete,
optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 55 x 10-6, 49 x
10-6 -6 and 45 x 10 . The unit creep recovery for control concrete was 15%, for optimum
concrete without fly ash was 21% and for optimum concrete with fly ash was 22%.
217
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Time in Days
Uni
t Cre
ep S
trai
n, 1
0-6 in
/in
CGBOGBOGFB
Age at Unloading = 60 Days
Figure 4.76: Comparison of Unit Creep Strain and Unit Elastic Strain and Creep Recovery on Unloading for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate
Regardless of the strength of concrete, most of the creep recovery takes place
during the first few days after unloading. Thereafter, the rate of creep recovery decreased
considerably. Based on the strain recovery results for approximately same stress-strength
ratio, the initial unit elastic strain recovery and unit creep strain recovery were greater,
the higher the strength of concrete.
4.4.4.4 Plastic Shrinkage Tests of all the Materials Tests were conducted to determine the plastic shrinkage cracking potential of
concrete mixes with quartzite aggregate. All the three mixes did not crack. The laboratory
temperature was between 70 to 75°F and the humidity varied between 35 to 45 %. The
specified wind velocity was 22 km/hr. Since the cement content was not excessive, there
was no plastic shrinkage cracking in all three concretes. Therefore it is not possible to
compare the plastic shrinkage potential of the control concrete and concrete with
optimized aggregate gradation. When the temperature is very high and the wind velocity
is much higher than 22 km/hr, then there may be plastic shrinkage cracking.
218
The “Plastic Shrinkage Crack Potential” test was also conducted for all three
concretes made with limestone and granite aggregates. As happened in the case of
quartzite aggregate concrete there were no plastic shrinkage cracks in all three of the
concretes made with limestone aggregates. The three concretes tested were control
concrete, concrete with optimized aggregate gradation and 10 percent reduced cement,
and concrete with optimized aggregate gradation; reduced cement and 20 percent of the
cement by weight replaced with fly ash by 25 percent by weight of the cement.
The conclusion drawn from the above-referred results is that there is no
possibility of plastic shrinkage cracking contributing to the total cracking of the bridge
deck. The primary cause of bridge deck cracking is due to the drying shrinkage. The
photographs of test slabs made with quartzite aggregate, taken after 24 hours of casting
are given in Appendix J.
4.5 Temperature monitoring in Concrete using Thermochron I-Button
Mixes:
A total of six series of mixes were done for this investigation. In these six series
of mixes four were with limestone aggregate, one series with granite aggregate and one
with quartzite aggregate and all the details were tabulated in Table 4.13. In each series
three mixes i.e. control, optimum without fly ash and optimum with fly ash as
replacement for cement were done. In control mix 25 mm (1inch) aggregate was used as
the only coarse aggregate where as in the optimum mixes a combination of 37.5 mm (1.5
inch) and 19 mm (¾ inch) aggregates were used in optimized proportion.
In the first two series of mixes done with limestone aggregate the optimum mixes
were made with 15% reduction in cement content. In another two series of mixes done
with limestone aggregate the optimum mixes were made with 10% reduction in cement
content. In the last 2 series of mixes done with granite and quartzite aggregate
respectively, the optimum mixes were made with 10% reduction in cement content.
All the optimum mixes with fly ash had 20% by weight of cement replaced with
25% by weight of fly ash; this replacement is an addition to the 10% cement reduction.
219
Table 4.13. Mix Designations for all the Mixes
S.No. Mix Designation Description1 1CLB Control Limestone Bridge deck concrete mix 12 1OLB Optimum Limestone Bridge deck concrete mix 1 (15% Cement reduction)3 1OLFB Optimum Limestone Bridge deck concrete with fly ash mix 14 2CLB Control Limestone Bridge deck concrete mix 25 2OLB Optimum Limestone Bridge deck concrete mix 2 (15% Cement reduction)6 2OLFB Optimum Limestone Bridge deck concrete with fly ash mix 27 3CLB Control Limestone Bridge deck concrete mix 38 3OLB Optimum Limestone Bridge deck concrete mix 3 (10% Cement reduction)9 3OLFB Optimum Limestone Bridge deck concrete with fly ash mix 3
10 4CLB Control Limestone Bridge deck concrete mix 411 4OLB Optimum Limestone Bridge deck concrete mix 4 (10% Cement reduction)12 4OLFB Optimum Limestone Bridge deck concrete with fly ash mix 413 1CGB Control Granite Bridge deck concrete mix 114 1OGB Optimum Granite Bridge deck concrete mix 1 (10% Cement reduction)15 1OGFB Optimum Granite Bridge deck concrete with fly ash mix 116 1CQB Control Quartzite Bridge deck concrete mix 117 1OQB Optimum Quartzite Bridge deck concrete mix 1 (10% Cement reduction)18 1OQFB Optimum Quartzite Bridge deck concrete with fly ash mix 1
Correlation of Concrete Temperature and Cement Content:
The increase in temperature over the initial temperature in all the mixes has been
shown in the following Table 4.14.
Table 4.14. Change (increase) in temperature observed for all the mixes
Mix Designation Initial Temperature (0F) Peak Temperature (0F) Increase in Temperature (0F)1CLB 67.1 79.0 11.91OLB 66.2 76.1 9.9
1OLFB 60.8 77.9 17.12CLB 65.3 78.8 13.52OLB 65.3 73.4 8.1
2OLFB 67.1 70.7 3.63CLB 73.4 86.0 12.63OLB 73.4 82.4 9.0
3OLFB 71.6 82.4 10.84CLB 68.9 80.6 11.74OLB 69.2 80.6 11.4
4OLFB 70.7 81.5 10.81CGB 65.3 78.8 13.51OGB 67.1 79.7 12.6
1OGFB 65.3 76.1 10.81CQB 73.4 94.1 20.71OQB 73.4 93.2 19.8
1OQFB 74.3 93.2 18.9 Note: Initial temperature of concrete was recorded immediately after the concrete was
placed in the cylinder i.e. within five minutes after the concrete was discharged from the mixer.
220
I-button was programmed such that initial reading was recorded immediately after
placing in the concrete. This was within five minutes after discharging the concrete from
mixer. After casting, the cylinder was kept in lab for 24 hrs, and then the specimen was
demolded and kept for curing in the moisture room with 100% humidity. The cylinder
was tested at the age of 7 days for compressive strength.
Compressive strength for all the mixes at the age of seven days is shown in the
following Table 4.15.
Table 4.15. Compressive Strength of all the mixes at the age of 7 days
Mix Designation Age (Days) Diameter (in.) Length (in.)Unit weight (lb/ft3) Comp. strength (psi)1CLB 7 4.046 8.184 141 42081OLB 7 4.013 8.197 146 3981
1OLFB 7 3.946 8.335 151 42852CLB 7 4.022 8.050 142 40542OLB 7 4.013 8.122 143 3753
2OLFB 7 4.025 8.069 142 34053CLB 7 4.085 8.134 141 40263OLB 7 4.017 7.973 148 4020
3OLFB 7 4.034 8.077 148 43094CLB 7 4.045 8.012 146 41964OLB 7 4.058 8.127 146 4203
4OLFB 7 4.075 8.234 147 44861CGB 7 4.049 8.180 142 39841OGB 7 4.028 8.172 143 4328
1OGFB 7 4.047 8.039 143 46281CQB 7 4.012 8.070 147 38211OQB 7 4.006 8.098 149 4385
1OQFB 7 4.050 8.105 149 5480
Series 1 (1CLB, 1OLB & 1OLFB)
The optimum mix without fly ash made with limestone aggregates (1OLB- with
15% reduction in cement) showed a 9.90F increase in temperature. Where as the standard
DOT control mix (1CLB – without reduction in cement) showed 11.90F increase in
221
temperature. This shows that the optimum mix (1OLB), which had less cement, had less
increase in temperature due to less heat of hydration.
The optimum mix with fly ash (1OLFB) showed 17.10F increase in temperature.
The reason for the greater increase in temperature in spite of higher percentage reduction
in cement and the use of fly ash may be due to the addition of high range water reducer
(superplasticizer). The high range water reducer had increased the rate of hydration,
which in turn increased the temperature of concrete due to the increased heat of hydration
generated.
The compressive strengths at the age of 7 days of the control (1CLB), optimum
without fly ash (1OLB), and optimum with fly ash (1OLFB) mixes were 4208 psi, 3981
psi and 4285 psi respectively. Reduction in the strength of the optimum without fly ash
mix may be due to the less cement content (15%) in the mix. This less cement content
may not be enough to bind all the aggregates, which in turn reduced the compressive
strength. Whereas in the case of optimum mix with fly ash, (OLFB), the increase in
strength is marginal because of the addition of fly ash.
It was found that the reduction in the cement was proportional to reduction in the
increase of temperature due to the hydration process.
Series 2 (2CLB, 2OLB & 2OLFB)
The optimum mix without fly ash made with limestone aggregates (2OLB- with
15% reduction in cement) showed a 8.10F increase in temperature. Where as the standard
DOT control mix (2CLB – without reduction in cement) showed 13.50F increase in
temperature. This shows that the optimum mix (2OLB) which had less cement had less
increase in temperature due to less heat of hydration.
The optimum mix with fly ash (2OLFB) showed 3.60F increase in temperature.
The reason for the lesser increase in temperature in 2OLFB may be due to higher
percentage reduction in cement and the use of fly ash. This reduction in cement content
and use of fly ash might have reduced the heat of hydration, which in turn reduced the
temperature of concrete. Superplasticizer was not used in this mix.
222
The compressive strengths at the age of 7 days of the control (2CLB), optimum
without fly ash (2OLB), and optimum with fly ash (2OLFB) mixes were 4054 psi, 3753
psi and 3405 psi respectively. Reduction in the strength of the optimum without fly ash
mix may be due to the less cement content (15%) in the mix. Whereas in the case of
optimum mix with fly ash, (OLFB), the decrease in strength is because of a very high
reduction in cement content in this mix (20% by weight of cement replaced with 25% by
weight of fly ash; this replacement is an addition to the 15% cement reduction). It was
found later from trial mixes that by using well-graded aggregates the cement content
could be reduced only to a maximum of 10% without compromising the strength and
workability of concrete.
Series 3 (3CLB, 3OLB & 3OLFB)
The optimum mix without fly ash made with limestone aggregates (3OLB- with
10% reduction in cement) showed a 9.00F increase in temperature. Where as the standard
DOT control mix (3CLB – without reduction in cement) showed 12.60F increase in
temperature. This shows that the optimum mix (3OLB) which had less cement had less
increase in temperature due to less heat of hydration.
The optimum mix with fly ash (3OLFB) showed 10.80F increase in temperature.
The reason for the lesser increase in temperature in 3OLFB may be due to higher
percentage reduction in cement and the use of fly ash. This reduction in cement content
and use of fly ash might have reduced the heat of hydration which in turn reduced the
temperature of concrete.
The compressive strengths at the age of 7 days of the control (3CLB), optimum
without fly ash (3OLB), and optimum with fly ash (3OLFB) mixes were 4026 psi, 4020
psi and 4309 psi respectively. In spite of 10% reduction in cement content in optimum
mix without fly ash it had almost equal compressive strength of the control mix. This
may be due to the use of well graded aggregates. In the case of optimum mix with fly ash,
the increase in strength may be due to the addition of fly ash.
223
Series 4 (4CLB, 4OLB & 4OLFB)
The optimum mix without fly ash made with limestone aggregates (4OLB- with
10% reduction in cement) showed a 11.40F increase in temperature. Where as the
standard DOT control mix (4CLB – without reduction in cement) showed 11.70F increase
in temperature. This shows that the optimum mix (4OLB), which had less cement, had
less increase in temperature due to less heat of hydration.
The optimum mix with fly ash (4OLFB) showed 10.80F increase in temperature.
The reason for the lesser increase in temperature in 4OLFB may be due to higher
percentage reduction in cement and the use of fly ash. This reduction in cement content
and use of fly ash might have reduced the heat of hydration, which in turn reduced the
temperature of concrete. This shows that the cement content is directly proportional to
concrete temperature. It is evident that there is a relationship between the quantity of
cement in the mix and the increase in temperature due to the hydration process. The
higher the cement content in the mix, the higher is the increase in temperature due to the
hydration.
The compressive strengths at the age of 7 days of the control (4CLB), optimum
without fly ash (4OLB), and optimum with fly ash (4OLFB) mixes were 4196 psi, 4203
psi and 4486 psi respectively. In spite of 10% reduction in cement content in optimum
mix without fly ash it had almost equal compressive strength of the control mix. The
reason may be the use of well-graded aggregates. In the case of optimum mix with fly ash
the increase in strength was due to the addition of fly ash.
Series 5 (1CGB, 1OGB & 1OGFB)
The optimum mix without fly ash made with granite aggregates (1OGB- with
10% reduction in cement) showed a 12.60F increase in temperature. Whereas the standard
DOT control mix (1CGB – without reduction in cement) showed 13.50F increase in
temperature. This shows that the optimum mix (1OGB), which had less cement, had less
increase in temperature due to less heat of hydration.
The optimum mix with fly ash (1OGFB) showed 10.80F increase in temperature.
The reason for the lesser increase in temperature in 1OGFB may be due to higher
224
percentage reduction in cement and the use of fly ash. This reduction in cement content
and use of fly ash might have reduced the heat of hydration which in turn reduced the
temperature of concrete. With granite aggregate it was also seen that the increase in
concrete temperature is proportional to the increase in cement content.
The compressive strengths at the age of 7 days of the control (1CGB), optimum
without fly ash (1OGB), and optimum with fly ash (1OGFB) mixes were 3984psi, 4328
psi and 4628 psi respectively. In spite of 10% reduction in cement content in optimum
mix without fly ash it had more compressive strength than control mix. This may be due
to the use of well-graded aggregates. Whereas in optimum mix with fly ash increase in
strength is due to use of well graded aggregates and fly ash.
Series 6 (1CQB, 1OQB & 1OQFB)
The optimum mix without fly ash made with quartzite aggregates (1OQB- with
10% reduction in cement) showed a 19.80F increase in temperature. Whereas the standard
DOT control mix (1CQB – without reduction in cement) showed 20.70F increase in
temperature. This shows that the optimum mix (1OQB), which had less cement, had less
increase in temperature due to less heat of hydration.
The optimum mix with fly ash (1OQFB) showed 18.90F increase in temperature.
The reason for the lesser increase in temperature in 1OQFB may be due to higher
percentage reduction in cement and the use of fly ash. This reduction in cement content
and use of fly ash might have reduced the heat of hydration, which in turn reduced the
temperature of concrete. Even in the case of quartzite aggregate concrete it was seen that
increase in concrete temperature is proportional to the increase in cement content.
The compressive strengths at the age of 7 days of the control (1CQB), optimum
without fly ash (1OQB), and optimum with fly ash (1OQFB) mixes were 3821psi, 4385
psi and 5480 psi respectively. In spite of 10% reduction in cement content in optimum
mix without fly ash it had more compressive strength than control mix. This may be due
to the use of well-graded aggregates. Where as in optimum mix with fly ash increase in
strength is due to use of well-graded aggregates and fly ash.
In all the mixes temperature increased in the first 8-13 hours rapidly and after that
concrete had a steady temperature for the 7 days in the curing moist room.
225
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
3/9/2003 0:00 3/10/2003 0:00 3/11/2003 0:00 3/12/2003 0:00 3/13/2003 0:00 3/14/2003 0:00 3/15/2003 0:00 3/16/2003 0:00 3/17/2003 0:00
Time
Tem
pera
ture
(0 F)
Figure 4.77: Typical Variation of concrete (1OLFB) temperature over a period
of 7 days
A typical temperature variation graph for the concrete over a period of 7 days
recorded by I-Button is shown in above Figure 4.77.
The graphs for the temperature variation in all the mixes, monitored by I button
are shown in Figures L1 to L18 in Appendix L.
Correlation of Concrete Temperature and Initial and Final Setting Times
The initial and final setting time test was done for one series of limestone and one
series of granite mixes in order to study the relation between the temperature raise and
the setting time.
In the series of mixes in limestone, initial setting time for control, optimum
without fly ash and optimum with fly ash were 217 min, 260 min and 366 min
respectively. The final setting times were 273 min, 317 min and 391 min for control,
optimum without fly ash and optimum with fly ash respectively. The corresponding
increase in temperature observed for the three mixes were 11.7 0 0 0F, 11.4 F and 10.8 F
respectively. Higher setting times in case of optimum mixes when compared to control
226
may be due to less cement content. Due to less cement content in optimum mixes
temperature increase was less and resulted in higher setting time.
In granite, control has a lesser initial as well as final setting time than optimum
mixes. The initial setting time for control, optimum without fly ash and optimum with fly
ash were 216 min, 241 min, and 361 min respectively. The final setting times were 241
min, 272 min, and 392 min for 1CGB, 1OGB and 1OGFB respectively. The
corresponding increase in temperature observed for the three mixes were 13.5 0 0F, 12.6 F
and 10.8 0F respectively. The increase in the initial and final setting time in the optimum
mixes may be due to less cement content. Because of less cement content in optimum
mixes temperature increase was less and may have resulted in higher setting times.
In quartzite, control has a lesser initial as well as final setting time than optimum
mixes. The initial setting time for control, optimum without fly ash and optimum with fly
ash were 212 min, 250 min, and 295 min respectively. The final setting times were 255
min, 292 min, and 325 min respectively. The corresponding increase in temperature
observed for the three mixes were 20.7 0 0F, 19.8 F and 18.9 0F respectively. The increase
in the initial and final setting time in the optimum mixes may be due to the less cement
content. As cement produces the heat of hydration, because of less cement content in
optimum mixes temperature increase was less and may have resulted in higher setting
time.
I-button in Other Projects:
Knowing that I-button is useful in finding the temperature variation in the
concrete it was used in the other projects (Bacterial concrete, NSF sponsored project).
Mortar and concrete mixes with bacteria suspended in water, phosphate buffer and urea
cacl2 were monitored for temperature using I-button. Results found using I-button were
very useful in understanding the behavior of the concrete with bacteria suspended in
different mediums in the durability and as well plastic shrinkage studies.
227
CHAPTER 5.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Conclusions
• A comprehensive literature review relevant to optimized aggregate gradation and
its effect on strength and durability aspects of concrete was done, which helped in
planning and conducting this research project.
• Four methods pertaining to obtaining optimized aggregate gradation: 0.45 power
chart, 8-18 method, USAF constructability chart method and Shilstone method,
were studied and used for this investigation. It was found that all the four methods
complement each other to a great extent.
• Historically, the 0.45 power chart was used to develop uniform gradations for
asphalt mix designs. For the first time anywhere in the world a detailed
investigation was carried out to determine the validity of the 0.45 power chart and
its applicability to concrete mix designs.
o It was found that the mix incorporating the 0.45 power chart gradations gave the
highest strength and better workability when compared to other power charts and
the control concrete. The 0.45 power chart requires more minus 9.5 mm (3/8 in.),
plus 2.36 mm (No. 8) sieve particles (intermediate particles) that fill the major
voids and aid in mix mobility. Because of the intermediate particles, the concrete
mix incorporating the 0.45 power chart gradations gave the best workable mix
with the maximum strength. Thus the 0.45 power curve can be adopted with
confidence to obtain the densest configuration of aggregates and it is also
universally applicable for all aggregates. The increase in strength obtained by
using well-graded aggregates can be used to optimize the cement content for
improving the durability aspects of concrete.
• Due to its versatility and validity the 0.45 power chart was used to obtain the
target gradation. Therefore the aim was to obtain an optimum blend whose
gradation would satisfy as nearly as possible the target gradation.
• Eventhough a single aggregate and sand can be produced by the aggregate
manufacturers to meet the target gradation, we did not use this approach, as it
would involve an increase in the cost. For practical considerations, in order to
228
make it easier for aggregate suppliers, only two standard sizes (1.5” and ¾”
maximum sizes) of coarse aggregates were selected for blending with medium
sand (FM = 2.84) to satisfy the target gradation. Therefore it is realized that an
exact fitting with the 0.45 power chart would not be always possible to achieve.
Still an almost close fit with the 0.45 power chart’s target gradation was obtained
for both quartzite and limestone aggregates. The combined optimized aggregate
gradation that satisfied the 0.45 power chart was then compared with the
Shilstone gradations, USAF constructability chart and the 8-18 method for
compatibility. It was found that the obtained gradation was compatible with all
the 4 methods.
• Since the supplied coarse granite aggregates were crushed aggregates and there
was a greater variation in the shape and texture of the aggregates, it was more
difficult to get the exact fit with the 0.45 power chart, and compatible with
Shilstone method, USAF and 8-18 methods.
• By trial and error the following proportions were chosen for each aggregate,
based on the aggregates supplied, that when blended gave the optimized aggregate
gradation.
o Quartzite Aggregate : 27.5% (1.5 inch) : 37.5% (¾ inch) : 35% (sand)
o Limestone Aggregate : 30% (1.5 inch) : 35% (¾ inch) : 35% (sand)
o Granite Aggregate : 35% (1.5 inch) : 30% (¾ inch) : 35% (sand)
• After optimizing the aggregate gradation the cement content in the concrete mix
was optimized (to reduce shrinkage cracks in concrete) without compromising the
strength, workability requirements. Different percentage reductions of cement
content (8.4%, 10% and 15%) were tried extensively, and tested for strength and
workability characteristics. It was found that concrete mixes made with 10%
reduction in cement content (compared to the corresponding control concrete)
gave the optimum results. Even though there was a 10% reduction in cement
content, a corresponding strength reduction was not observed because of the use
of optimized aggregate gradation.
• The influence of different percentages of cement content (8.4% & 10% for
quartzite aggregate concretes, 10 & 15% for limestone aggregate concretes and
229
10% for granite aggregate) on the durability characteristics of concretes were also
determined and are also reported. The comparison of the durability test results
between the two sets of mixes (8.4 % and 10%) with different percentages of
cement reduction for concretes made with quartzite aggregate were made. It was
found that the strength and durability test results of both the sets of mixes showed
similar trends. Similarity of durability test results was not observed for concretes
made with limestone aggregates with different percentages reduction in cement
content (10% & 15%).
• It was found from trial mixes that by using well-graded aggregates the cement
content could be reduced to a maximum of 10% without compromising the
strength and workability of concrete.
• The optimized aggregate concrete with 10% cement reduction for all the three
aggregates (quartzite, limestone and granite) with and without fly ash were
subjected to the following tests.
Workability
All the three mixes, control, optimum without fly ash and optimum with fly ash
were easily workable, even though the optimum mixes had a reduction of 10.0% in the
cement content with all three aggregates (quartzite, limestone and granite).
The finishability for control and optimum mixes without fly ash was good. The
finishability of the optimum mixes with fly ash was very good because of more paste
content. Appropriate amounts of medium range waster reducer and air entraining agent
were added to meet the SDDOT requirements of slump and the air content.
Compressive Strength
• The 28-day compressive strengths for optimum quartzite concrete without fly
ash and optimum quartzite concrete with fly ash were 2.5% and 24% more than
that of the control concrete.
• The 28-day compressive strengths for optimum limestone concrete without fly
ash and optimum limestone concrete with fly ash were 4% and 11% more than
that of the control concrete.
230
• The 28-day compressive strengths for optimum granite concrete without fly ash
and optimum granite concrete with fly ash were 9% and 15% more than that of
the control concrete.
• It was found that same trend was observed for all the ages.
Modulus of Rupture (Flexural Strength)
• The 28-day flexural strength for optimum quartzite concrete without fly ash and
optimum quartzite concrete with fly ash were 2.4% and 17.3% respectively
more than that for the control concrete.
• The 28-day flexural strength for optimum limestone concrete without fly ash
and optimum limestone concrete with fly ash were 5% and 14% respectively
more than that for the control concrete.
• The 28-day flexural strength for optimum granite concrete without fly ash and
optimum granite concrete with fly ash were 4% and 13% respectively more than
that for the control concrete.
Sulfate Resistance of Concrete
• It was found that 18% and 29% reductions in the mean expansions of optimum
quartzite concrete without fly ash and optimum quartzite concrete with fly ash
respectively were observed, when compared to that of the control concrete at the
end of 15 weeks.
• It was found that 10% and 19% reductions in the mean expansions of optimum
limestone concrete without fly ash and optimum limestone concrete with fly ash
respectively were observed, when compared to that of the control concrete at the
end of 15 weeks.
• It was found that 13% and 21% reductions in the mean expansions of optimum
granite concrete without fly ash and optimum granite concrete with fly ash
respectively were observed, when compared to that of the control concrete at the
end of 15 weeks.
231
Drying Shrinkage Deformations
• A reduction of 15% and 26% in shrinkage deformations of optimum quartzite
concrete without and with fly ash respectively was observed, when compared to
control quartzite concrete, at the end of 90 days.
• A reduction of 16% and 25% in shrinkage deformations of optimum limestone
concrete without and with fly ash respectively was observed, when compared to
control quartzite concrete, at the end of 60 days.
• A reduction of 15% and 27% in shrinkage deformations of optimum granite
concrete without and with fly ash respectively was observed, when compared to
control quartzite concrete, at the end of 60 days.
Alkali Aggregate Reactivity
• It can be observed from the results that there were reductions of 10% and 85%
in the mean percentage expansions of optimum quartzite concrete without fly
ash and optimum quartzite concrete with fly ash, when compared to the control
concrete at the end of 14 days.
• It can be observed that there were reductions of 14% and 49% in the mean
percentage expansions of optimum limestone concrete without fly ash and
optimum limestone concrete with fly ash, when compared to the control
concrete at the end of 14 days.
• It can be observed from the results that there were reductions of 24% and 74%
in the mean percentage expansions of optimum granite concrete without fly ash
and optimum granite concrete with fly ash, when compared to the control
concrete at the end of 14 days.
Creep and Shrinkage
• At the end of 60 days of sustained loading, the total unit creep strains measured
for the optimum quartzite concrete without fly ash and optimum quartzite
concrete with fly ash were 19% and 26% lesser than the control concrete.
• The unit creep recovery for 10 days upon unloading were 17%, 20% and 23%
respectively for control quartzite concrete, optimum quartzite concrete without
232
fly ash and optimum quartzite concrete with fly ash of their respective total unit
creep strain during the period of 60 days.
• At the end of 60 days of sustained loading, the total unit creep strains measured
for the optimum limestone concrete without fly ash and optimum limestone
concrete with fly ash were 19% and 23% lesser than the control concrete.
• The unit creep recovery for 10 days upon unloading were 16%, 20% and 22%
respectively for control limestone concrete, optimum limestone concrete
without fly ash and optimum limestone concrete with fly ash of their respective
total unit creep strain during the period of 60 days.
• At the end of 60 days of sustained loading, the total unit creep strains measured
for the optimum granite concrete without fly ash and granite optimum concrete
with fly ash were 19% and 26% lesser than the control concrete.
• The unit creep recovery for 10 days upon unloading were 15%, 21% and 22%
respectively for control granite concrete, optimum granite concrete without fly
ash and optimum granite concrete with fly ash of their respective total unit creep
strain during the period of 60 days.
Setting Time
• Optimum quartzite concrete without fly ash had 19% and 15% increase in the
initial and final setting times respectively when compared to control concrete. In
case of optimum quartzite concrete with fly ash the increase was 35% and 29%
in initial and final setting times respectively when compared to control concrete.
• Control limestone concrete had lesser initial and final setting times when
compared to optimum concrete without and with fly ash. Optimum limestone
concrete with fly ash had an increase of 69% and 43% in initial and final setting
times respectively when compared to control concrete.
• Optimum granite concrete without fly ash had 12% and 13% increase in the
initial and final setting times respectively when compared to control concrete. In
case of optimum granite concrete with fly ash the increase was 21% and 62% in
initial and final setting times respectively when compared to control concrete.
233
Rapid Chloride Permeability Test
• Chloride permeability was rated high for both control and optimum quartzite
concrete without fly ash and moderate for the optimum quartzite concrete with
fly ash at 56 days. Permeability was rated high for both control and optimum
concrete without fly ash and low for optimum concrete with fly ash at 90 days.
• Chloride permeability was rated high for both control and optimum limestone
concrete without fly ash and moderate for the optimum quartzite concrete with
fly ash at 56 days. Permeability was rated high for both control and optimum
concrete without fly ash and moderate for optimum concrete with fly ash at 90
days.
• Chloride permeability was rated high for both control and optimum granite
concrete without fly ash and moderate for the optimum quartzite concrete with
fly ash at 56 days. Permeability was rated high for both control and optimum
concrete without fly ash and moderate for optimum concrete with fly ash at 90
days.
Scaling Resistance of Concrete to Deicing Chemicals
• All the control concretes (quartzite, limestone and granite) had very light
scaling at the end of 50 cycles, whereas all the optimum concretes (quartzite,
limestone and granite) without fly ash and with fly ash showed good resistance
to the deicer scaling, even when the cement content was reduced by 10 percent.
Freeze Thaw Resistance of Concrete
• After 300 cycles of freeze thaw all the optimum concretes (quartzite, limestone
and granite) without fly ash and with fly ash had higher durability factor and
less mean expansion than control concretes (quartzite, limestone and granite).
• In all the concretes (quartzite, limestone and granite) control, optimum mixes
without and with fly ash had durability factor in the range of 88 – 91 indicating
very good freeze thaw resistance (ASTM C 494 sets the minimum durability
factor at 80%).
234
Plastic Shrinkage Test
• Tests were conducted to determine the plastic shrinkage cracking potential of
concrete mixes (control, optimum without flyash and optimum with flyash) with
all aggregates. All the mixes did not crack. The laboratory temperature was
between 70 to 75°F and the humidity varied between 35 to 45 %. The specified
wind velocity was 22 km/hr (15 miles/hr). Since the cement content was not
excessive, there was no plastic shrinkage cracking in all three concretes.
Therefore it is not possible to compare the plastic shrinkage potential of the
control concrete and concrete with optimized aggregate gradation. When the
temperature is very high and the wind velocity is much higher than 22 km/hr
(15 miles/hr) as occurs sometimes in the field, then there may be plastic
shrinkage cracking. These conditions could not be simulated in the lab.
Temperature Monitoring
• The concrete temperatures of all the mixes were monitored using a new
instrument called I-button, which was provided by the SDDOT. It was found
that in the optimum mixes without fly ash the reduction in the cement was
proportional to reduction in the increase of temperature due to the hydration
process. The reason for the lesser increase in temperature in optimum mix with
fly ash may be due to higher percentage reduction in cement and the use of fly
ash. This reduction in cement content and use of fly ash might have reduced the
heat of hydration, which in turn reduced the temperature of concrete.
• There was a good correlation between the setting time and the temperature of
concrete. It was found that optimum mixes had higher setting times when
compared to control, due to less cement content. Because of less cement content
in optimum mixes, temperature increase was less and resulted in higher setting
times.
• I-button proved to be an effective tool for monitoring continuously the exact
temperature variation in the concrete.
235
5.2 Recommendations
1. It is recommended that 37.5 mm (1.5 in) maximum size aggregate with the
recommended target gradation, as determined by the 0.45 power chart, for the
combined coarse and fine aggregates with a tolerance of + 3 should be used for all
the aggregates ( quartzite, limestone and granite). The target gradation is given
below:
Target gradation with allowable tolerance
1.51
3/41/23/8
No. 4No. 8No. 16No. 30No. 50No. 100
118
39292116
1008374
5461
13-198-145-11
51-5736-4226-3218-24
97-10080-8671-7758-64
Sieve Size (in)
Target Gradation
Allowable Limits (+ or - 3 tolerance)
2 Because of the possible variation in the aggregate shape, size and the gradation
even from the same supplier, it is recommended that individual sieve analysis for
37.5 mm (1.5 in) and 19 mm (¾ in) and medium sand should be done. These
aggregates should be blended in suitable proportions by trial and error to obtain
the proposed target gradation. Compatibility of the obtained combined gradation
should be checked with Shilstone method, USAF constructability chart and 8-18
method. If necessary some field adjustments can be made to ensure compatibility
with Shilstone, USAF constructability chart and 8-18 method. It should be noted
that it may not be always possible with a particular aggregates to satisfy all the
four methods.
3 The best possible blend with the available coarse aggregate sizes 37.5 mm (1.5 in)
and 19 mm (¾ in) and medium sand that matched the target gradation was
obtained for all the three supplied aggregates (quartzite, limestone and granite)
from the South Dakota Aggregate suppliers ( the sieve analysis of the supplied
236
aggregates are included in the report). The combined gradations thus obtained by
blending for all the three aggregates (quartzite, limestone and granite) are given
below:
Combined gradations for the aggregates (Quartzite, limestone and granite)
Quartzite Limestone Granite1.5 100 99 100 1001 83 83 88 99
3/4 74 74 75 911/2 61 66 58 783/8 54 52 48 60
No. 4 39 37 36 37No. 8 29 33 32 32
No. 16 21 26 25 25No. 30 16 14 16 16No. 50 11 4 8 7No. 100 8 1 2 2
Combined Gradation Sieve Size (in) Target Gradation
4. A method proposed in the investigation can be used to arrive at the percentages of
the three aggregates to be combined. For the three aggregates (quartzite,
limestone and granite) and medium sand obtained from the South Dakota
aggregate suppliers, the mixture proportions obtained in this investigation are
given below:
Recommended Mixture Proportions for the Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate
IngredientVolume
Proportions (ft3)
Volume Proportions
(ft3)Cement 614.00 pcy 3.10 492.00 pcy 2.49Fly Ash 0.00 pcy 0.00 154.00 pcy 0.99Coarse Aggregate 1.5" 813.00 pcy 4.95 815.00 pcy 4.97
1.0" 0.00 pcy 0.00 0.00 pcy 0.003/4" 1108.00 pcy 6.75 1110.00 pcy 6.76
Fine Aggregate 1033.00 pcy 6.32 1036.00 pcy 6.34Water 256.00 pcy 4.10 231.00 pcy 3.70Air 6.50 % 1.76 6.50 % 1.76Total 27.00 27.00W/C RatioW/CM Ratio
OQB - Optimuum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete (Without Fly ash)OQFB -
pcy -
The following values of specific gravities were used for the calculation of volume proportions:Cement - 3.17; Fly Ash - 2.50; Coarse Aggregate - 2.63; Fine Aggregate - 2.62
Optimuum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete (With Fly ash)
Weight Proportions Weight
Proportions
0.42 0.47
OQB OQFB
0.360.42
pounds per cubic yard
237
Recommended Mixture Proportions for the Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate
IngredientVolume
Proportions (ft3)
Volume Proportions
(ft3)Cement 619.00 pcy 3.13 496.00 pcy 2.51Fly Ash 0.00 pcy 0.00 155.00 pcy 0.99Coarse Aggregate 1.5" 893.00 pcy 5.34 898.00 pcy 5.37
1.0" 0.00 pcy 0.00 0.00 pcy 0.003/4" 1043.00 pcy 6.24 1045.00 pcy 6.25
Fine Aggregate 1043.00 pcy 6.38 1045.00 pcy 6.39Water 260.00 pcy 4.17 233.00 pcy 3.73Air 6.50 % 1.76 6.50 % 1.76Total 27.00 27.00W/C RatioW/CM Ratio
OLB - OLFB -
pcy -
OLB OLFB
0.360.42
The following values of specific gravities were used for the calculation of volume proportions:Cement - 3.17; Fly Ash - 2.50; Coarse Aggregate - 2.68; Fine Aggregate - 2.62
Optimuum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete (Without Fly ash)Optimuum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete (With Fly ash)pounds per cubic yard
Weight Proportions Weight
Proportions
0.42 0.47
Recommended Mixture Proportions for the Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate
IngredientVolume
Proportions (ft3)
Volume Proportions
(ft3)Cement 612.00 pcy 3.09 491.00 pcy 2.48Fly Ash 0.00 pcy 0.00 154.00 pcy 0.99Coarse Aggregate 1.5" 1030.00 pcy 6.32 1033.00 pcy 6.34
1.0" 0.00 pcy 0.00 0.00 pcy 0.003/4" 882.00 pcy 5.42 885.00 pcy 5.43
Fine Aggregate 1030.00 pcy 6.30 1033.00 pcy 6.32Water 257.00 pcy 4.12 231.00 pcy 3.70Air 6.50 % 1.76 6.50 % 1.76Total 27.00 27.00W/C RatioW/CM Ratio
OGB - OGFB -
pcy -
OGB OGFB
0.360.42
The following values of specific gravities were used for the calculation of volume proportions:Cement - 3.17; Fly Ash - 2.50; Coarse Aggregate - 2.61; Fine Aggregate - 2.62
Optimuum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete (Without Fly ash)Optimuum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete (With Fly ash)pounds per cubic yard
Weight Proportions Weight
Proportions
0.42 0.47
Notes for all Tables
SI unit conversion Factors: 1pcy = 0.593 kg/m3, 1 ft3 = 0.028 m3, 1 in = 25.4 mm
1. Appropriate quantity of air entraining agent should be used to obtain the required air content.
2. Whenever required, an appropriate quantity of water reducing agent (either mid
range or high range) should be used to achieve the specified slump.
238
5. Based on a very comprehensive and extensive laboratory investigation, it is
recommended that the optimum graded mixture proportions with class F fly ash
should be specified for bridge deck concrete. Compared to plain deck concrete,
the benefits of using fly ash deck concrete as demonstrated in this project, are
substantial reduction in the chloride ion penetrability (a “low” value as per ASTM
C 1202), reduced corrosion potential, higher modulus concrete, reduced plastic
shrinkage, reduced drying shrinkage, reduced early temperature rise due to the
hydration activity, less micro-cracking, higher durability, better workability and
good finishability. Additional benefits are reduced creep, better bond, higher
resistance to sulfate attack, less expansion due to alkali-aggregate reaction, less
deicer scaling and higher freeze thaw durability factor. It is recommended that
20% of the cement by weight should be replaced with 25% by weight of Class F
fly ash.
6. In cases where the water to cementitious ratios are very low (in the range of 0.28
to 0.32) and mineral admixture such as fly ash is used, high range water reducers
are recommended. In cases where w/c ratio is around 0.40, mid range water
reducers may be sufficient. Addition of large quantities of mid range water
reducers lowers the rate of strength gain.
7. When optimized aggregate concretes are used, it is recommended that the
following quality control tests should be conducted in the field using ASTM test
procedures for the fresh concrete: slump, unit weight, air content and the concrete
temperature. The ambient temperature, humidity and the wind velocity should be
recorded during the bridge deck concrete placement. The compressive strength
and static modulus tests should be conducted on the field samples collected and
cured according to the ASTM standard procedures at 28 days.
Appendix – A
Details of Tables and Figures of Sieve Analysis, Optimization, Aggregate Gradation, Trial Mixes and Fresh Concrete properties for
Optimization of mixture proportions
A-1
Table AQ1: Mixture Designations for Trial Mixes of Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregates.
Mix ID Description
CQB45 Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete (w/c ratio-0.45)OQB45 Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with out Fly Ash (w/c ratio-0.45)OQFB45 Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash (w/c ratio-0.45)
CQB45 A Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Cocrete ( Trial A - w/c ratio-0.45)OQB45 A Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with out Fly Ash ( Trial A - w/c ratio-0.45)OQFB45 A Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash ( Trial A - w/c ratio-0.45)
CQB40 Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete (w/c ratio-0.40)OQB40 Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with out Fly Ash (w/c ratio-0.40)OQFB40 Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash (w/c ratio-0.40)
CQB43 Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete (w/c ratio-0.43)OQB43 Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with out Fly Ash (w/c ratio-0.43)OQFB43 Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash (w/c ratio-0.43)
CQB42 Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete (w/c ratio-0.42)OQB42 R Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with out Fly Ash (w/c ratio-0.42)
(Reduced Cement)OQFB42 R Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash (w/c ratio-0.42)
(Reduced Cement)
Table AL2: Mixture Designation for Trial Mixes for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate
* Blend I = 30% of 1.5inch Aggregate, 35% of 3/4 inch Aggregate and 35% of Fine Aggregate * Blend II = 23% of 1.5inch Aggregate, 42% of 3/4 inch Aggregate and 35% of Fine Aggregate
Mix ID
Control Limestone Blend I Trial Mix with 15 % Cement Reduction (w/c ratio - 0.42) Optimum Limestone Blend I Trial Mix with 15 % Cement Reduction (w/c ratio - 0.42)
OLBT - IOLBT - I (CR)OLBT - IIOLBT - II (CR)
Optimum Limestone Fly Ash Blend I Trial Mix with 15 % Cement Reduction (w/c ratio - 0.55)
Description
CLB OLBOLFB
Optimum Limestone Blend I Trial Mix with 8.4 % Cement Reduction (w/c ratio - 0.42) Optimum Limestone Blend I Trial Mix with 15 % Cement Reduction (w/c ratio - 0.42) Optimum Limestone Blend II Trial Mix with 8.4 % Cement Reduction (w/c ratio - 0.42) Optimum Limestone Blend II Trial Mix with 15 % Cement Reduction (w/c ratio - 0.42)
A-2
Table AG3: Mixture Designation for Trial Mixes for Bridge Deck Concrete with
Granite Aggregate
Mix ID Description
OGB T(1*) Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash(Air Entraining Agent added in full - w/c ratio-0.42)
OGFB T(1) Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash(Air Entraining Agent added in Steps - w/c ratio-0.50)
2OGFB T(1) Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash(Air Entraining Agent added in full - w/c ratio-0.50 )
OGB T(2**) Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash(Air Entraining Agent added in full - w/c ratio-0.42)
OGFB T(2) Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash(Air Entraining Agent added in full - w/c ratio-0.50)
CGB T(1) Control Granite Bridge Deck Concrete(w/c ratio-0.42)
OGFB T(1)-2 Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash(w/c ratio-0.47)
OGFB T(2)-2 Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash(w/c ratio-0.47)
* Aggregate Blend of 35%(1.5"):30%(3/4"):35%(Fine Aggregate)** Aggregate Blend of 41%(1.5"):24%(3/4"):35%(Fine Aggregate)
Table AQ4: Mixture Designation for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate MIX ID Description
1-CQB Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete ( Mix 1)1-OQB Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with out Fly Ash ( Mix 1)1-OQFB Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash. ( Mix 1)
2-CQB Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete ( Mix 2)2-OQB Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with out Fly Ash. ( Mix 2)2-OQFB Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash. ( Mix 2)
3-CQB Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete ( Mix 3)3-OQB Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck concrete with out Fly Ash ( Mix 3)3-OQFB Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck concrete with Fly Ash. ( Mix 3)
A-3
Table AL5: Mixture Designation for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate
Mix ID Description
1 - CLB Control Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete (Mix 1)1 - OLB Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash (Mix 1)1 - OLFB Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash (Mix 1)
2 - CLB Control Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete (Mix 2)2 - OLB Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash (Mix 2)2 - OLFB Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash (Mix 2)
3 - CLB Control Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete (Mix 3)3 - OLB Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash (Mix 3)3 - OLFB Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash (Mix 3)
Table AG6: Mixture Designation for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate
MIX ID Description
1- CGB Control Granite Bridge Deck Concrete (Mix 1)1- OGB Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with out Fly Ash (Mix 1)1- OGFB Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash (Mix 1)
2- CGB Control Granite Bridge Deck Concrete (Mix 2)2- OGB Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with out Fly Ash(Mix 2)2- OGFB Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash (Mix 2)
3- CGB Control Granite Bridge Deck Concrete (Mix 3)3- OGB Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with out Fly Ash (Mix 3)3- OGFB Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash (Mix 3)
4- CGB Control Granite Bridge Deck Concrete (Mix 4)4- OGB Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with out Fly Ash (Mix 4)4- OGFB Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash (Mix 4)
A-4
Table AQ7: Mixture Proportions for Trial Mixes of Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregates.
Fly Ash Cement Fine Air Water w/c w/(c+f)1.5" Max 1" Max 3/4" Max Aggregate Entraining
Size Size Size Agentpcy pcy pcy pcy pcy pcy *A pcy % %
CQB45 0 655 0 1725 0 1100 1.00 295 0.45 0.45OQB45 0 655 777 0 1060 989 1.00 295 0.45 0.45
OQFB45 197 491 777 0 1060 989 1.00 221 0.45 0.32
CQB45 A 0 655 0 1725 0 1100 1.25 295 0.45 0.45OQB45 A 0 655 777 0 1060 989 1.25 295 0.45 0.45
OQFB45 A 197 491 777 0 1060 989 3.00 221 0.45 0.32
CQB40 0 655 0 1725 0 1100 1.50 262 0.40 0.40OQB40 0 655 777 0 1060 989 1.50 262 0.40 0.40
OQFB40 197 491 777 0 1060 989 2.00 197 0.40 0.29
CQB43 0 655 0 1725 0 1100 1.50 282 0.43 0.43OQB43 0 655 777 0 1060 989 1.50 282 0.43 0.43
OQFB43 164 524 777 0 1060 989 2.00 164 0.43 0.33
CQB42 0 655 0 1725 0 1100 1.50 275 0.42 0.42 OQB42 R 0 600 777 0 1060 989 1.50 252 0.42 0.42
OQFB42 R 150 480 777 0 1060 989 2.50 202 0.42 0.32
*Apcyw/c
w/(c+f)1 oz
Pounds per cubic yardwater-cement ratiowater-cementitious ratio29.57 ml
Ounces per 100 lb of cement
Mix ID Coarse AggregateMixture Proportions
Table AL8: Mixture Proportions for Trial Mixes of Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate
Fly Ash Cement Fine Air Water w/c w/(c+f)
1.5" Max 1" Max 3/4" Max Aggregate EntrainingSize Size Size Agent
pcy pcy pcy pcy pcy pcy *A pcy % %
LB T - I 0 600 848 0 989 989 1.50 252 0.42 0.42LBT - I (CR) 0 556 848 0 989 989 1.50 234 0.42 0.42LBT - II 0 600 650 0 1187 989 1.50 252 0.42 0.42LBT - II (CR) 0 556 650 0 1187 989 1.50 234 0.42 0.42
0 655 0 1725 0 1100 3.10 275 0.42 0.42LB 0 556 848 0 989 989 7.27 234 0.42 0.42LFB 139 445 848 0 989 989 3.00 245 0.55 0.42
*A Ounces per 100 lb of cementpcy Pounds per cubic yardw/c water-cement ratio
w/(c+f) water-cementitious ratio1 oz
Mix ID Coarse AggregateMixture Proportions
29.57 ml
O
OO
O
CLB
OO
A-5
Table AG9: Mixture Proportions for Trial Mixes of Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate
Fly Ash Cement Fine Air Water w/c w/(c+f)1.5" Max 1" Max 3/4" Max Aggregate Entraining
Size Size Size Agentpcy pcy pcy pcy pcy pcy *A pcy % %
OGB T(1) 0 590 989 0 848 989 3.00 248 0.42 0.42OGFB T(1) 148 472 989 0 848 989 4.00 236 0.50 0.382OGFB T(1) 148 472 989 0 848 989 4.00 236 0.50 0.38OGB T(2) 0 590 1159 0 678 989 3.00 248 0.42 0.42OGFB T(2) 148 472 1159 0 678 989 3.50 236 0.50 0.38
CGB T(1) 0 655 0 1725 0 1100 3.00 275 0.42 0.42OGFB T(1)-2 148 472 989 0 848 989 3.00 222 0.47 0.36OGFB T(2)-2 148 472 1159 0 678 989 3.80 222 0.47 0.36
*A Ounces per 100 lb of cementpcy Pounds per cubic yardw/c water-cement ratio
w/(c+f) water-cementitious ratio1 oz
Mix ID Coarse AggregateMixture Proportions
29.57 ml Table AQ10: Mixture Proportions for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate
Ingredient CQB OQB OQFB
Cement (pcy) 655 590 471.6Fly Ash (pcy) 0 0 147.4
Coarse Aggregate (pcy) 1.5" 0 776.9 776.91.0" 1725 0 03/4" 0 1059.4 1059.4
Fine Aggregate (pcy) 1100 988.8 988.8Water (pcy) 275.1 247.6 221.7W/C Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.47
W/CM Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.36
A-6
Table AL11: Mixture Proportions for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone
Aggregate
Fly Ash (pcy)Coarse Aggregate (pcy) 1.5"
1" 3/4"
Fine Aggregate (pcy)Water (pcy)W/C RatioW/CM Ratio
SI Unit Conversion Factorspcy - Pounds per cubic yard 1 oz. - 29.57 ml1 pcy - 0.593 kg/m3 1 lb - 0.4536 kg
988.8221.70.470.36
147.4847.5
0.0988.8
0.42
988.8247.6
0.42
1100.0275.10.42 0.42
0.0847.5
0.0988.8
0.00.0
1725.00.0
655.0 589.5 471.6Cement (pcy)
Ingredient CLB OLB OLFB Table AG12: Mixture Proportions for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate
Fly Ash (pcy)Coarse Aggregate (pcy) 1.5"
1" 3/4"
Fine Aggregate (pcy)W ater (pcy)W /C RatioW /CM Ratio
SI Unit Conversion Factorspcy - Pounds per cubic yard 1 oz. - 29.57 ml1 pcy - 0.593 kg/m3 1 lb - 0.4536 kg
988.8221.80.470.36
147.5988.8
0.0847.5
0.42
988.8247.6
0.42
1100.0275.10.42 0.42
0.0988.8
0.0847.5
0.00.0
1725.00.0
655.0 590.0 472.0Cement (pcy)
Ingredient CGB OGB OGFB
A-7
Table AQ13: Fresh Concrete Properties for Trial Mixes with Quartzite Aggregate.
Mix ID Ambient Relative Slump Air Unit Weight ConcreteTemp Humidity Content Temp ( o F ) ( RH ) (in.) (%) ( lb/ft3 ) ( o F )
CQB45 75 45 4.1 4.0 148 75OQB45 75 45 2.8 4.0 146 75
OQFB45 75 45 0.5 2.6 152 74
CQB45A 75 40 3.6 5.8 145 73 OQB45A 75 40 3.3 6.0 144 73
OQFB45A 75 40 0.6 3.0 150 72
CQB40 75 50 2.1 3.8 149 72OQB40 75 50 2.3 4.2 148 75
OQFB40 75 50 0.2 2.6 151 74
CQB43 70 40 4.1 6.4 143 70OQB43 70 40 6.0 6.0 144 72
OQFB43 70 40 0.8 3.6 150 71
CQB42 70 45 2.7 5.2 146 71 OQB42 R 70 45 3.0 5.8 145 70
OQFB42 R 70 45 0.3 3.2 150 70
1 lb - 0.4536 kg 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3
N. A - Not Applicable
SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm 1 psi - 0.0069 MPa
Table AL14: Fresh Concrete Properties for Trial Mixes with Limestone Aggregate.
Ambient Relative Slump Air Content Unit Weight ConcreteMix ID Temp Humidity Temp
( 0 F ) ( RH ) (in.) (%) (lb/ft3) ( 0 F )
OLB T - I 70 30 3.5 5.6 148 62 OLBT - I (CR) 70 30 0.6 4.0 149 62
OLBT - II 70 30 0.5 3.4 150 62OLBT - II (CR) 70 30 1.4 4.8 149 62
CLB 70 35 3.0 5.8 148 58 OLB 70 35 2.9 5.2 148 58OLFB 70 35 4.0 6.8 145 60
1 lb - 0.4536 kg 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3
N. A - Not Applicable
SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm 1 psi - 0.0069 MPa
A-8
Table AG15: Fresh Concrete Properties for Trial Mixes with Granite Aggregate.
Ambient Relative Slump Air Content Unit Weight ConcreteMix ID Temp Humidity Temp
( 0 F ) ( RH ) (in.) (%) (lb/ft3) ( 0 F )
OGB T(1) 65 38 1.5 5.2 148 60 OGFB T(1) 65 38 1.9 6.8 144 60
2OGFB T(1) 65 38 1.8 6.0 146 59OGB T(2) 65 38 1.5 6.6 145 60
OGFB T(2) 65 38 1.5 6.4 146 58
CGB T(1) 70 40 2.1 5.6 146 58 OGFB T(1)-2 70 40 1.0 5.0 147 60 OGFB T(2)-2 70 40 0.8 5.2 147 60
1 lb - 0.4536 kg 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3
N. A - Not Applicable
SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm 1 psi - 0.0069 MPa
Table AQ16: Fresh Concrete Properties for Bridge Deck Concrete Mixes with Quartzite Aggregate
Mix ID Ambient Relative Slump Air Unit Weight ConcreteTemp Humidity Content Temp( oF ) (RH) ( in ) ( % ) (lb/ft3) ( oF )
1-CQB 80 45 3.25 6.6 144 641-OQB 80 45 3.5 6.6 143 681-OQFB 70 45 1.5 5.4 149 62
2-CQB 70 45 2.5 5.8 145 622-OQB 70 45 2.5 6.2 144 622-OQFB 70 45 3 5.8 146 62
3-CQB 75 40 3.5 6.4 146 703-OQB 75 40 3 6.2 146 703-OQFB 75 40 3.5 6.2 144 70
1 lb - 0.4536 kg 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3
N. A - Not Applicable
SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm 1 psi - 0.0069 MPa
A-9
Table AL17: Fresh Concrete Properties for Bridge Deck Concrete Mixes with Limestone Aggregate
1 lb - 0.4536 kg 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3
N. A - Not Applicable
SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm 1 psi - 0.0069 MPa
Mix ID Ambient Relative Slump Air Unit Weight ConcreteTemp Humidity Content Temp ( o F ) ( RH ) (in.) (%) ( lb/ft3 ) ( o F )
1 - CLB 70 30 1.5 5.4 148 621 - OLB 70 40 2.2 5.2 148 60
1- OLFB 70 30 3.2 5.6 148 62
2 - CLB 70 45 2.0 5.4 147 622 - OLB 70 45 2.2 5.4 149 60
2 - OLFB 70 45 2.0 5.6 148 60
3 - CLB 70 45 3.0 5.8 147 603 - OLB 70 45 2.7 6.0 148 60
3 - OLFB 70 45 3.0 6.8 148 60
Table AG18: Fresh Concrete Properties for Bridge Deck Concrete Mixes with
Granite Aggregates.
Ambient Relative Slump Air Content Unit Weight ConcreteMix ID Temp Humidity Temp
( 0 F ) ( RH ) (in.) (%) (lb/ft3) ( 0 F )
1 -CGB 65 40 2.8 6.2 144 60 1 -OGB 65 40 1.5 5.4 147 60
1 -OGFB 65 40 1.0 5.4 148 61
2 -CGB 70 45 1.5 5.2 148 60 2 -OGB 70 45 1.5 5.6 146 62
2 -OGFB 70 45 1.0 5.4 147 60
3 -CGB 75 45 2.3 5.6 145 62 3 -OGB 75 45 1.0 5.4 146 66
3 -OGFB 75 45 1.3 5.2 145 66
4 -CGB 80 45 3.0 6.4 144 66 4 -OGB 80 45 3.5 6.6 144 66
4 -OGFB 80 45 2.0 6.8 143 66
1 lb - 0.4536 kg 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3
N. A - Not Applicable
SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm 1 psi - 0.0069 MPa
A-10
Table AQ19: Concrete Cylinder Compressive Strength (Quartzite Aggregate) for Trial Mixes
2 8 D a yM ix ID A ir C o n te n t S lu m p U n it W e ig h t C o m p . S t re n g th
% in ( lb /f t 3 ) p s i
C Q B 4 5 4 .0 4 .1 1 4 8 5 0 2 3O Q B 4 5 4 .0 2 .8 1 4 6 5 0 3 9
O Q F B 4 5 2 .6 0 .5 1 5 2 6 0 0 8
C Q B 4 5 A 5 .8 3 .6 1 4 5 4 6 2 8 O Q B 4 5 A 6 .0 3 .3 1 4 4 4 2 9 4
O Q F B 4 5 A 3 .0 0 .6 1 5 0 6 0 8 4
C Q B 4 0 3 .8 2 .1 1 4 9 5 6 0 5O Q B 4 0 4 .2 2 .3 1 4 8 5 6 4 9
O Q F B 4 0 2 .6 0 .2 1 5 1 6 1 5 4
C Q B 4 3 6 .4 4 .1 1 4 3 4 4 5 6O Q B 4 3 6 .0 6 .0 1 4 4 4 4 9 3
O Q F B 4 3 3 .6 0 .8 1 5 0 5 6 3 0
C Q B 4 2 5 .2 2 .7 1 4 6 4 5 8 0 O Q B 4 2 R 5 .8 3 .0 1 4 5 4 5 6 5
O Q F B 4 2 R 3 .2 0 .3 1 5 0 5 7 7 9
1 lb - 0.4536 kg 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3
N. A - Not Applicable
SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm 1 psi - 0.0069 MPa
Table AL20: Concrete Cylinder Compressive Strength (Limestone Aggregate) for Trial Mixes
Air Content Slump Unit WeightMix ID
(%) (in.) (lb/ft3)
OLB T - I 5.6 3.5 148 OLBT - I (CR) 4.0 0.6 149
OLBT - II 3.4 0.5 150OLBT - II (CR) 4.8 1.4 149
CLB 5.8 3.0 148 OLB 5.2 2.9 148OLFB 6.8 4.0 145
28 DayComp. Strength
(psi)
4842538454374693
46174304
4928
1 lb - 0.4536 kg 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3
N. A - Not Applicable
SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm 1 psi - 0.0069 MPa
A-11
Table AG21: Concrete Cylinder Compressive Strength (Granite Aggregate) for Trial Mixes
Air Content Slump Unit WeightMix ID
(%) (in.) (lb/ft3)
OGB T(1) 5.2 1.5 148 OGFB T(1) 6.8 1.9 144
2OGFB T(1) 6.0 1.8 146OGB T(2) 6.6 1.5 145
OGFB T(2) 6.4 1.5 146
CGB T(1) 5.6 2.1 146 OGFB T(1)-2 5.0 1.0 147 OGFB T(2)-2 5.2 0.8 147
28 DayComp. Strength
(psi)
56805310498152085164
529361125801
1 lb - 0.4536 kg 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3
N. A - Not Applicable
SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm 1 psi - 0.0069 MPa
A-12
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
No.100 No.50 No.30 No.16 No.8 No.4 3/8 in
Perc
ent P
assi
ng
Sieve Size Si Si ( )
Figure AQ1: Sieve Analysis of Fine Aggregate (Fischer).
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
No.100 No.50 No.30 No.16 No.8 No.4 3/8 in
Perc
ent P
assi
ng
Sieve Size Figure AQ2: Sieve Analysis of Fine Aggregate (Birdsall- Wasta)
A-13
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
No.100 No.50 No.30 No.16 No.8 No.4 3/8 in
Perc
ent P
assi
ng
Sieve Size Figure AQ3: Sieve Analysis of Fine Aggregate (Opperman)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
No.100 No.50 No.30 No.16 No.8 No.4 3/8 in
Perc
ent P
assi
ng
Sieve Size Figure AQ4: Sieve Analysis of Fine Aggregate (# 4 Spencer Quarry)
A-14
Sieve Size Figure AQ5: Sieve Analysis of C ate (1 1/2 inch Spencer Quarry)
igure AQ6 Sieve Anal is of ate (1 inch Spencer Quarry)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
No.100 No.50 No.30 No.16 No.8 No.4 3/8 in 3/4 in 1.5 in
Perc
ent P
assi
ng
ourse Aggreg
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
No.100 No.50 No.30 No.16 No.8 No.4 3/8 in 3/4 in 1.0 in 1.5 in
Perc
ent P
assi
ng
Sieve Size F : ys Course Aggreg
A-15
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
No.100 No.50 No.30 No.16 No.8 No.4 3/8 in 3/4 in
Perc
ent P
assi
ng
Sieve Size Figure AQ7: Sieve Analysis of Course Aggregate (3/4 inch Unwashed-Spencer Quarry)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
No.100 No.50 No.30 No.16 No.8 No.4 3/8 in 3/4 in
Perc
ent P
assi
ng
Sieve Size Figure AQ8: Sieve Analysis of Course Aggregate (3/4 inch washed-Spencer Quarry)
A-16
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
No.100 No.50 No.30 No.16 No.8 No.4 3/8 in 3/4 in
Perc
ent P
assi
ng
Sieve Size
Figure AQ9: Sieve Analysis of Course Aggregate (9/16 inch Spencer Quarry)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
No.100 No.50 No.30 No.16 No.8 No.4 3/8 in
Perc
ent P
assi
ng
Sieve Size Figure AQ10: Sieve Analysis of Course Aggregate (7/16 inch Spencer Quarry)
A-17
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
No.100 No.50 No.30 No.16 No.8 No.4 3/8 in
Perc
ent P
assi
ng
Sieve Size Figure AQ11: Sieve Analysis of Course Aggregate (3/8 inch Spencer Quarry)
Sieve Size
Figure AL12: Sieve Analysis of Fine Aggregate – Birdsall Creston
A-18
Sieve Size Figure AL13: Sieve Analysis of Coarse Aggregate – 1.5 inch Aggregate (Initially Supplied) - Hills Material
Sieve Size Figure AL14: Sieve Analysis of Coarse Aggregate - 3/4 inch Aggregate (Initially Supplied - Hills Material)
A-19
Sieve Size
Figure AL15: Sieve Analysis of Initial Blend - 35 % of 1.5 inch, 30% of 3/4 inch Aggregate (Initially Supplied) – Hills Material - and 30% of Fine Aggregate -Birdsall Creston
Sieve Size
Figure AL16: Sieve Analysis of Coarse Aggregate -1.5 inch Limestone Aggregate (New Improved) - Hills Material.
A-20
Sieve Size Figure AL17: Sieve Analysis of Improved Blend - 35 % of 1.5 in (New Improved), 30% of 3/4 inch Aggregate (Initially Supplied) – Hills Material - And 30% of Fine Aggregate - Birdsall Creston
Sieve Size
Figure AL18: Sieve Analysis of Coarse Aggregate – 1.5 inch Aggregate) (Finally Supplied - Hills Material )
A-21
Sieve Size
Figure AL19: Sieve Analysis of Coarse Aggregate -1.0 inch Limestone Aggregate (Finally Supplied-Hills Material)
Sieve Size
Figure AL20: Sieve Analysis of Coarse Aggregate - 3/4 inch Limestone Aggregate (Finally Supplied-Hills Material)
A-22
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
No.100 No.50 No.30 No.16 No.8 No.4 3/8 in 3/4 in 1.5 in
Perc
ent P
assi
ng
Sieve Size
Figure AG21: Sieve Analysis of Coarse Aggregate (1 ½ inch Ortonville Stone)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
No.100 No.50 No.30 No.16 No.8 No.4 3/8 in 3/4 in
Perc
ent P
assi
ng
Sieve Size
Figure AG22: Sieve Analysis of Coarse Aggregate (3/4 inch Ortonville Stone)
A-23
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
No.100 No.50 No.30 No.16 No.8 No.4 3/8 in 3/4 in 1.5 in
Sieve Size
Perc
ent P
assi
ng
Figure AG23: Sieve Analysis of Coarse Aggregate (1 inch Ortonville Stone)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
No.100 No.50 No.30 No.16 No.8 No.4 3/8 in
Perc
ent P
assi
ng
Sieve Size
Figure AG24: Sieve Analysis of Fine Aggregate ( Birdsall Creston Sand)
A-24
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 1 2 3 4 5{Sieve size-mm}0.45
Perc
ent p
assi
ng
6
Figure AQ25: Comparison of Optimum Gradation with 0.45 Power Chart for Quartzite Aggregate
Figure AL26: Comparison of Optimum Gradation with 0.45 Power Chart for Limestone Aggregate
A-25
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 1 2 3 4 5
(Sieve Size - mm)^0.45
Perc
ent P
assi
ng
6
Figure AG27: Comparison of Optimum Gradation with 0.45 Power Chart for Granite Aggregate
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1.5 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 No. 4 No. 8 No. 16 No. 30 No. 50 No. 100ASTM Standard Sieve Size
Perc
ent f
iner
by
wei
ght
Sandy MixOptimum MixHarsh MixCombined Gradation
Figure AQ28: Comparison of Optimum Gradation (Quartzite) with Shilstone Method
A-26
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1.5 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 No. 4 No. 8 No. 16 No. 30 No. 50 No. 100
ASTM Standard Sieve Size
Perc
ent f
iner
by
wei
ght
Sandy Mix
Optimum Mix
Harsh Mix
Combined Gradation
Figure AL29: Comparison of Optimum Gradation (Limestone) (30% - 35% - 35% Blend) with Shilstone Method.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1.5 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 No. 4 No. 8 No. 16 No. 30 No. 50 No. 100
ASTM Standard Sieve Size
Perc
ent f
iner
by
wei
ght
Combined Gradation
Sandy mix (Shillstone method)
Optimum mix (Shillstonemethod)Harsh mix (Shillstone method)
Figure AG30: Comparison of Optimum Gradation (Granite) with Shilstone Method
A-27
WO
RK
AB
ILIT
Y F
AC
TO
R
COARSENESS FACTOR Figure AQ31: USAF constructability chart for Optimum Gradation of Quartzite Aggregate 45
35
25
20
30
40
304050607080
CO
ARSE
SANDY
W ELLG RADED1-1/2"-3/4"
W ELLG RADEDM inus 3/4"
CO
ARSE
GAP
GR
ADED
RO CKY
CO NTROL LINE
AGG
REG
ATE
SIZE
FIN
E
C O AR SEN ESS FACTO R
WO
RK
ABIL
ITY
FAC
TOR
2
1
27.5
Figure AL32: UASF Constructability chart for Optimum Gradation
of limestone Aggregate (30% - 35% - 35% Blend)
A-28
45
35
25
20
30
40
304050607080
CO
ARSE
SANDY
WELLGRADED1-1/2"-3/4"
WELLGRADEDMinus 3/4"
CO
ARSE
GAP
GR
ADED
ROCKY
CONTROL LINE
AGG
REG
ATE
SIZE
FIN
E 2
COARSENESS FACTOR
WO
RK
ABIL
ITY
FAC
TOR
1
27.5
Figure AG33: USAF constructability chart for Optimum Gradation of Granite Aggregate
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2 1.5 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 No. 4 No. 8 No. 16 No. 30 No. 50 No.100Sieve Size
Perc
ent R
etai
ned
betw
een
siev
es
RetainedUpper LimitLower Limit
Figure AQ34: Comparison of Optimum Gradation of Quartzite Aggregate with 8-18 Method.
A-29
Figure AL35: Comparison of Optimum Gradation of Limestone (30% - 35% - 35% Blend) with 8 – 18 Method.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2 1.5 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 No. 4 No. 8 No. 16 No. 30 No. 50 No. 100
Sieve Size
Perc
ent R
etai
ned
betw
een
siev
es
RetainedUpper LimitLower Limit
Figure AG36: Comparison of Optimum Gradation of Granite Aggregate with 8-18 Method
A-30
Figure AL37 (a): Comparison of Optimum Gradation (Blend with 23% of 1.5 inch Aggregate, 43% of 3/4 inch Aggregate – Hills Material - and 35% of Fine Aggregate – Birdsall Creston) with 0.45 Power Chart (Limestone Aggregate)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1.5 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 No. 4 No. 8 No. 16 No. 30 No. 50 No. 100
ASTM Standard Sieve Size
Perc
ent f
iner
by
wei
ght
Sandy MixOptimum MixHarsh MixCombined Gradation
Figure AL38 (a): Comparison of Optimum Gradation of Limestone Aggregate (23% - 42% - 35% Blend) with Shilstone Method.
A-31
Figure AL39 (a): Comparison of Optimum Gradation of Limestone Aggregate (23% - 42% - 35% Blend) with 8 – 18 Method.
4 5
3 5
2 5
2 0
3 0
4 0
30405 0607080
CO
ARSE
S AN D Y
W E L L G R AD E D1-1 /2"-3 /4"
W E L L G R AD E DM in u s 3 /4"
CO
ARSE
GAP
GR
ADED
R O C K Y
C O N TR O L L IN E
AGG
REG
ATE
SIZE
FIN
E
C O A R S E N E S S FA C T O R
WO
RK
ABIL
ITY
FAC
TOR
2
1
27 .5
Figure AL40 (a): USAF Constructability chart for Optimum Gradation of Limestone Aggregate (23% - 42% - 35% Blend)
A-32
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
CQB45
OQB45
OQFB45
CQB45
A
OQB45
A
OQFB45
A
CQB40
OQB40
OQFB40
CQB43
OQB43
OQFB43
CQB42
OQB42
R
O
QFB42 R
Mix Designation
Slum
p (in
.)
Figure AQ41: Slump of Trial Mixes for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregates.
Figure AL42: Slump of Trial Mixes for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone
Aggregates
A-33
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
OGB T(1)
OGFB T(1)
2O
GFB T(1)
OGB T(2)
OGFB T(2)
CGB T(1)
OGFB T(1)
-2
OGFB T(2)
-2
Mix Designation
Slum
p (in
.)
Figure AG43: Slump of Trial Mixes for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
CQB45
OQB45
OQFB45
CQB45
A
OQB45
A
OQFB45
A
CQB40
OQB40
OQFB40
CQB43
OQB43
OQFB43
CQB42
OQB42
R
OQFB42
R
Mix Designation
Air
Con
tent
(%)
Figure AQ44: Air Content of Trial Mixes for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregates
A-34
Figure AL45: Air Content of Trial Mixes for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregates
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
OGB T(1)
OGFB T(1)
2O
GFB T(1)
OGB T(2)
OGFB T(2)
CGB T(1)
OGFB T(1)
-2
OGFB T(2)
-2
Mix Designation
Air
Con
tent
(%)
Figure AG46: Air Content of Trial Mixes for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates
A-35
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
CQB45
OQB45
OQFB45
CQB45
A
OQB45
A
OQFB45
A
CQB40
OQB40
OQFB40
CQB43
OQB43
OQFB43
CQB42
OQB42
R
O
QFB42 R
Mix Designation
Uni
t Wei
ght (
lb/ft
3 )
Figure AQ47: Unit Weight of Trial Mixes for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate
0102030405060708090
100110120130140150
OLBT - I OLBT - I(CR)
OLBT - II OLBT - II(CR)
CLB OLB OLFB
Mix Designation
Uni
t Wei
ght(l
b/ft3 )
Figure AL48: Unit Weight of Trial Mixes for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregates
A-36
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
OGB T(1)
OGFB T(1)
2O
GFB T(1)
OGB T(2)
OGFB T(2)
CGB T(1)
OGFB T(1)
-2
OGFB T(2)
-2
Mix Designation
Uni
t Wei
ght (
lb/ft
3 )
Figure AG49: Unit Weight of Trial Mixes for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Control Optimum with out Fly Ash Optimum with Fly Ash
Slum
p (in
)
Figure AQ50: Comparison of Slump for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate (Mix1)
A-37
Figure AL51: Comparison of Slump for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate (Mix 1)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
Control Optimum without Fly Ash Optimum with Fly Ash
Mix
Slum
p (in
.)
Figure AG52: Comparison of Slump for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate (Mix2)
A-38
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Control Optimum with out Fly Ash Optimum with Fly Ash
i 2 C i f Ai C f i C
Air
Con
tent
(%)
Figure AQ53: Comparison of Air Content for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate (Mix1)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Control Optimum Optimum with Fly Ash
Mix
Air
Con
tent
(%)
Figure AL54: Comparison of Air Content for Bridge Deck Concrete with
Limestone Aggregate (Mix1)
A-39
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
Control Optimum without Fly Ash Optimum with Fly Ash
Mix
Air
Con
tent
(%)
Figure AG55: Comparison of Air Content for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate (Mix 2)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Control Optimum with out Fly Ash Optimum with Fly Ash
Uni
t Wei
ght (
pcf)
Figure AQ56: Comparison of Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate (Mix 1)
A-40
Figure AL57: Comparison of Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete with
Limestone Aggregate (Mix 1)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Control Optimum without Fly Ash Optimum with Fly Ash
Mix
Uni
t Wei
ght (
lb/ft
3 )
Figure AG58: Comparison of Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate (Mix 2)
A-41
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Control Optimum with out Fly Ash Optimum with Fly Ash
Slum
p (in
)
Figure AQ59: Comparison of Slump for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate (Mix 2)
Figure AL60: Comparison of Slump for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate (Mix 2)
A-42
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
Control Optimum without Fly Ash Optimum with Fly Ash
Mix
Slum
p (in
.)
Figure AG61: Comparison of Slump for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate (Mix 3)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Control Optimum with out Fly Ash Optimum with Fly Ash
Air
Con
tent
(%)
Figure AQ62: Comparison of Air Content for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate (Mix 2)
A-43
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
Control Optimum Optimum with Fly Ash
Mix
Air
Con
tent
(%)
Figure AL63: Comparison of Air Content for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate (Mix 2)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
Control Optimum without Fly Ash Optimum with Fly Ash
Mix
Air
Con
tent
(%)
Figure AG64: Comparison of Air Content for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate (Mix 3)
A-44
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Control Optimum with out Fly Ash Optimum with Fly Ash
Uni
t Wei
ght (
pcf)
Figure AQ65: Comparison of Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate (Mix 2)
Figure AL66: Comparison of Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete with
Limestone Aggregate (Mix 2)
A-45
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Control Optimum without Fly Ash Optimum with Fly Ash
Mix
Uni
t Wei
ght (
lb/ft
3 )
Figure AG67: Comparison of Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate (Mix 3)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Control Optimum with out Fly Ash Optimum with Fly Ash
Slum
p (in
)
Figure AQ68: Comparison Slump for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate (Mix 3)
A-46
Figure AL69: Comparison of Slump for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate (Mix 3)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Control Optimum without Fly Ash Optimum with Fly Ash
Mix
Slum
p (in
.)
Figure AG70: Comparison Slump for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate (Mix 4)
A-47
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Control Optimum with out Fly Ash Optimum with Fly Ash
Air
Con
tent
(%)
Figure AQ71: Comparison of Air Content for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate (Mix 3)
Figure AL72: Comparison of Air Content for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate (Mix 3)
A-48
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Control Optimum without Fly Ash Optimum with Fly AshMix
Air
Con
tent
(%)
Figure AG73: Comparison of Air Content for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate (Mix 4)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Control Optimum with out Fly Ash Optimum with Fly Ash
Uni
t Wei
ght (
pcf)
Figure AQ74: Comparison of Unit Weights for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate (Mix 3)
A-49
Figure AL75: Comparison of Unit Weights for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate (Mix 3)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Control Optimum without Fly Ash Optimum with Fly Ash
Mix
Uni
t Wei
ght (
lb/ft
3)
Figure AG76: Comparison of Unit Weights for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate (Mix 4)
A-50
Figure AQ77 (a): Comparison of Slump for Bridge Deck Concrete with Fi B19 dC i f Sl f B i D k C i h
0
1
2
3
4
5
Control Optimum Optimum with Fly AshMix
Slum
p (in
.)
Quartzite Aggregate (Mix 1)
Figure AQ78 (a): Comparison of Air Content for Bridge Deck Concrete with
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Control Optimum Optimum with Fly AshMix
Air
Con
tent
(%)
Quartzite Aggregate (Mix 1)
A-51
Figure AQ79 (a): Comparison of Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete with
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Control Optimum Optimum with Fly AshMix
Uni
t Wei
ght (
pcf)
Quartzite Aggregate (Mix 1)
Figure AQ80 (a): Comparison of Slump for Bridge Deck Concrete with
4
0
1
2
3
Control Optimum Optimum with Fly AshMix
Slum
p (in
.)
Quartzite Aggregate (Mix 2)
A-52
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Control Optimum Optimum with Fly AshMix
Air
Con
tent
(%)
Figure AQ81 (a): Comparison of Air Content for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate (Mix 2)
Figure AQ82 (a): Comparison of Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate (Mix 2)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
80
Control Optimum Optimum with Fly AshMix
Uni
t Wei
ght (
pcf)
1
A-53
0
1
2
3
4
Control Optimum Optimum with Fly AshMix
Slum
p (in
.)
Figure AQ83 (a): Comparison of Slump for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate (Mix 4)
Figure AQ84 (a): Comparison of Air Content for Bridge Deck Concrete with
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Control Optimum Optimum with Fly AshMix
Air
Con
tent
(%)
Quartzite Aggregate (Mix 4)
A-54
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Control Optimum Optimum with Fly AshMix
Uni
t Wei
ght (
pcf)
Figure AQ85 (a): Comparison of Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete with i 2 C i f i i f i C Quartzite Aggregate (Mix 4)
Appendix - B
Details of Hardened Concrete properties of mixes done for the determination of Strength
Development
B-1
Table BQ1: Cylinder Compressive Strength and Static Modulus of the Control Mix for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate
Mix Specimen Age Diameter Length Static Modulus Dry Unit Weight Comp. StrengthID ID (Days) (in.) (in.) (106 psi) (lb/ft3) (psi)
CQB CQB-1 1 3.962 8.031 N. A 146 1623CQB-2 1 3.952 8.139 N. A 147 1713CQB-3 1 4.016 8.062 N. A 145 1698
Average 146 1678Std. Dev 0.64 48
% C.V 0.44 2.87
CQB CQB-4 3 3.975 8.092 N. A 147 3346CQB-5 3 3.985 8.093 N. A 146 3449CQB-6 3 3.975 8.112 N. A 146 3426
Average 146 3407Std. Dev 0.77 54
% C.V 0.53 1.59
CQB CQB-7 7 3.950 8.115 N. A 148 3919CQB-8 7 3.957 8.088 N. A 147 3784CQB-9 7 3.975 8.175 N. A 147 3789
Average 147 3831Std. Dev 0.83 77
% C.V 0.56 2.00
CQB CQB-10 14 3.955 8.114 N. A 148 4561CQB-11 14 3.950 8.083 N. A 149 4613CQB-12 14 3.958 8.119 N. A 148 4472Average 148 4549Std. Dev 0.70 71
% C.V 0.47 1.57
CQB CQB-13 28 3.950 8.022 4.78 148 5266CQB-14 28 3.920 8.193 4.76 149 5181CQB-15 28 3.950 8.077 4.76 149 5185Average 4.77 149 5211Std. Dev 0.01 0.68 48
% C.V 0.24 0.46 0.92
CQB CQB-16 56 3.985 8.013 5.01 148 5415CQB-17 56 4.012 8.005 4.99 150 5303CQB-18 56 4.010 8.018 5.12 150 5268Average 5.04 150 5328Std. Dev 0.07 1.07 77
% C.V 1.39 0.72 1.44
CQB CQB-19 90 4.005 8.023 5.37 148 5520CQB-20 90 3.983 8.015 5.33 152 5541CQB-21 90 3.992 8.006 5.21 151 5476Average 5.30 151 5512Std. Dev 0.08 1.86 33.13
% C.V 1.57 1.23 0.60
1 lb - 0.4536 kg 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3
N. A - Not Applicable
SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm 1 psi - 0.0069 MPa
B-2
Table BL2: Cylinder Compressive Strength and Static Modulus of the Control Mix for Bridge Deck Concrete with limestone Aggregate
Mix Specimen Age Diameter Length Static Modulus Dry Unit Weight Comp. StrengthID ID (Days) (in.) (in.) (106 psi) (lb/ft3) (psi)
CLB CLB-1 1 3.967 8.134 N. A 150 2670CLB-2 1 3.971 8.145 N. A 147 2826CLB-3 1 3.985 8.073 N. A 148 2847
Average 148 2781Std. Dev 1.53 97
% C.V 1.03 3.48
CLB CLB-4 3 4.025 8.192 N. A 146 3695CLB-5 3 4.020 8.096 N. A 145 3781CLB-6 3 4.019 8.169 N. A 143 3627
Average 145 3701Std. Dev 1.53 77
% C.V 1.06 2.09
CLB CLB-7 7 3.967 8.117 N. A 148 4207CLB-8 7 4.028 8.187 N. A 142 4238CLB-9 7 4.025 8.087 N. A 143 4008
Average 144 4151Std. Dev 3.21 125
% C.V 2.23 3.01
CLB CLB-10 14 3.942 8.118 N. A 150 4589CLB-11 14 3.970 8.128 N. A 148 4282CLB-12 14 3.978 8.143 N. A 150 4425Average 149 4432Std. Dev 1.15 154
% C.V 0.77 3.47
CLB CLB-13 28 4.013 8.156 4.79 145 4998CLB-14 28 4.013 8.157 4.78 145 4978CLB-15 28 3.997 8.157 4.81 148 5048Average 4.79 146 5008Std. Dev 0.02 1.73 36
% C.V 0.32 1.19 0.72
CLB CLB-16 56 4.005 8.045 4.81 139 5213CLB-17 56 4.020 8.035 4.79 138 5165CLB-18 56 4.006 8.035 4.81 138 5180Average 4.80 138 5186Std. Dev 0.01 0.58 25
% C.V 0.24 0.42 0.47
CLB CLB-19 90 4.010 8.365 5.23 141 5456CLB-20 90 4.015 8.120 5.25 141 5465CLB-21 90 4.020 8.035 5.29 142 5475Average 5.26 141 5465Std. Dev 0.03 0.58 10
% C.V 0.58 0.41 0.17
SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm1 lb - 0.4536 kgN. A - Not Applicable
1 psi - 0.0069 MPa 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3
B-3
Table BG3: Cylinder Compressive Strength and Static Modulus of the Control Mix for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate
Mix Specimen Age Diameter Length Static Modulus Dry Unit Weight Comp. StrengthID ID (Days) (in.) (in.) (106 psi) (lb/ft3) (psi)
CGB CGB-1 1 4.035 8.153 N. A 142 2072CGB-2 1 4.025 8.136 N. A 140 2122CGB-3 1 4.036 8.130 N. A 140 2110
Average 141 2101Std. Dev 1.15 26% C.V 0.82 1.24
CGB CGB-4 3 4.032 8.156 N. A 140 3016CGB-5 3 4.009 8.117 N. A 140 3090CGB-6 3 4.024 8.148 N. A 140 3145
Average 140 3084Std. Dev 0.00 65% C.V 0.00 2.10
CGB CGB-7 7 4.024 8.117 N. A 140 3970CGB-8 7 4.004 8.133 N. A 140 4010CGB-9 7 4.016 8.111 N. A 140 4026
Average 140 4002Std. Dev 0.00 29% C.V 0.00 0.72
CGB CGB-10 14 4.018 8.144 N. A 141 4574CGB-11 14 4.028 8.140 N. A 140 4513CGB-12 14 4.026 8.140 N. A 140 4516Average 140 4534Std. Dev 0.58 34% C.V 0.41 0.76
CGB CGB-13 28 4.004 8.030 4.78 142 5003CGB-14 28 4.005 8.037 4.76 142 4962CGB-15 28 4.006 8.033 4.79 142 5039Average 4.78 142 5001Std. Dev 0.02 0.00 39% C.V 0.32 0.00 0.77
CGB CGB-16 56 4.007 8.040 4.85 139 5313CGB-17 56 4.025 8.043 4.82 138 5187CGB-18 56 4.021 8.033 4.83 138 5198Average 4.83 138 5233Std. Dev 0.02 0.58 70% C.V 0.32 0.42 1.33
CGB CGB-19 90 4.015 8.377 5.33 141 5529CGB-20 90 4.019 8.292 5.33 141 5557CGB-21 90 4.024 8.058 5.32 142 5544Average 5.33 141 5543Std. Dev 0.01 0.58 14% C.V 0.11 0.41 0.25
N. A - Not Applicable
1 psi - 0.0069 MPa 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3
SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm1 lb - 0.4536 kg
B-4
Table: BQ4: Cylinder Compressive Strength and Static Modulus of the Optimum
Mix without Fly Ash for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate
Mix Specimen Age Diameter Length Static Modulus Dry Unit Weight Comp. StrengthID ID (Days) (in.) (in.) (106 psi) (lb/ft3) (psi)
OQB OQB-1 1 4.015 8.170 N. A 149 2573OQB-2 1 4.020 8.233 N. A 148 2518OQB-3 1 3.970 8.153 N. A 149 2586
Average 149 2559Std. Dev 0.81 36
% C.V 0.55 1.41
OQB OQB-4 3 4.005 8.180 N. A 149 3954OQB-5 3 4.000 8.157 N. A 149 3876OQB-6 3 3.955 8.100 N. A 148 4031
Average 148 3954Std. Dev 0.55 78
% C.V 0.37 1.96
OQB OQB-7 7 3.997 8.171 N. A 149 4426OQB-8 7 3.968 8.075 N. A 149 4531OQB-9 7 3.993 8.100 N. A 148 4460
Average 149 4472Std. Dev 0.62 54
% C.V 0.42 1.20
OQB OQB-10 14 3.958 8.115 N. A 149 4756OQB-11 14 3.985 8.036 N. A 149 4733OQB-12 14 3.950 8.108 N. A 150 4776Average 149 4755Std. Dev 0.28 22
% C.V 0.19 0.45
OQB OQB-13 28 4.009 8.034 4.96 148 5390OQB-14 28 4.014 8.029 4.92 148 5297OQB-15 28 4.003 8.017 4.91 151 5406Average 4.93 149 5364Std. Dev 0.03 1.54 59
% C.V 0.54 1.04 1.09
OQB OQB-16 56 3.979 8.014 5.19 152 5713OQB-17 56 4.014 8.003 5.20 148 5534OQB-18 56 3.893 8.019 5.17 152 5842Average 5.19 151 5696Std. Dev 0.02 2.26 154
% C.V 0.29 1.50 2.71
OQB OQB-19 90 3.999 8.012 5.45 149 5815OQB-20 90 3.980 8.011 5.47 152 5871OQB-21 90 4.010 8.027 5.41 150 5823Average 5.44 150 5836Std. Dev 0.03 1.52 30.14
% C.V 0.56 1.02 0.52
1 lb - 0.4536 kg 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3
N. A - Not Applicable
SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm 1 psi - 0.0069 MPa
B-5
Table: BL5: Cylinder Compressive Strength and Static Modulus of the Optimum Mix without Fly Ash for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone
Aggregate
Mix Specimen Age Diameter Length Static Modulus Dry Unit Weight Comp. StrengthID ID (Days) (in.) (in.) (106 psi) (lb/ft3) (psi)
OLB OLB-1 1 3.984 8.155 N. A 150 2487OLB-2 1 3.983 8.092 N. A 148 2408OLB-3 1 3.963 8.088 N. A 152 2513
Average 150 2469Std. Dev 2.00 55
% C.V 1.33 2.21
OLB OLB-4 3 4.020 8.124 N. A 144 3467OLB-5 3 4.025 8.202 N. A 147 3772OLB-6 3 4.049 8.179 N. A 145 3418
Average 145 3552Std. Dev 1.53 192
% C.V 1.05 5.40
OLB OLB-7 7 4.028 8.088 N. A 147 3925OLB-8 7 4.043 8.032 N. A 147 3872OLB-9 7 4.035 8.202 N. A 144 4106
Average 146 3968Std. Dev 1.73 123
% C.V 1.19 3.09
OLB OLB-10 14 3.938 8.220 N. A 153 4804OLB-11 14 3.967 8.128 N. A 149 4774OLB-12 14 3.977 8.144 N. A 148 4871Average 150 4816Std. Dev 2.65 50
% C.V 1.76 1.03
OLB OLB-13 28 4.012 8.103 5.11 148 5203OLB-14 28 3.996 8.178 4.98 147 5203OLB-15 28 3.994 8.178 5.12 143 5247Average 5.07 146 5218Std. Dev 0.08 2.65 25
% C.V 1.54 1.81 0.49
OLB OLB-16 56 4.002 8.025 5.28 147 5395OLB-17 56 4.006 8.025 5.36 146 5450OLB-18 56 4.010 8.030 5.29 147 5445Average 5.31 147 5430Std. Dev 0.04 0.58 30
% C.V 0.82 0.39 0.56
OLB OLB-19 90 4.015 8.025 5.33 142 5655OLB-20 90 4.020 8.030 5.40 142 5675OLB-21 90 4.015 8.035 5.35 145 5650Average 5.36 143 5660Std. Dev 0.04 1.73 13
% C.V 0.67 1.21 0.23SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm 1 psi - 0.0069 MPa 1 lb - 0.4536 kg 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3
N. A - Not Applicable
B-6
Table: BG6: Cylinder Compressive Strength and Static Modulus of the Optimum Mix without Fly Ash for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite
Aggregate Mix Specimen Age Diameter Length Static Modulus Dry Unit Weight Comp. StrengthID ID (Days) (in.) (in.) (106 psi) (lb/ft3) (psi)
OGB OGB-1 1 4.024 8.150 N. A 143 2319OGB-2 1 4.006 8.135 N. A 143 2301OGB-3 1 4.030 8.094 N. A 142 2391
Average 143 2337Std. Dev 0.58 48% C.V 0.40 2.04
OGB OGB-4 3 4.028 8.129 N. A 143 3453OGB-5 3 4.025 8.135 N. A 143 3497OGB-6 3 4.024 8.130 N. A 143 3539
Average 143 3496Std. Dev 0.00 43% C.V 0.00 1.23
OGB OGB-7 7 4.034 8.123 N. A 142 4304OGB-8 7 4.002 8.123 N. A 142 4451OGB-9 7 4.019 8.131 N. A 142 4414
Average 142 4390Std. Dev 0.00 76% C.V 0.00 1.74
OGB OGB-10 14 4.024 8.118 N. A 141 5071OGB-11 14 4.016 8.129 N. A 142 5014OGB-12 14 4.014 8.123 N. A 142 5018Average 142 5034Std. Dev 0.58 32% C.V 0.41 0.63
OGB OGB-13 28 4.010 8.038 5.13 143 5423OGB-14 28 4.018 8.021 5.15 144 5520OGB-15 28 4.012 8.025 5.12 143 5378Average 5.13 143 5440Std. Dev 0.02 0.58 73% C.V 0.30 0.40 1.33
OGB OGB-16 56 4.020 8.027 5.33 143 5555OGB-17 56 4.008 8.034 5.40 142 5627OGB-18 56 4.012 8.025 5.31 146 5497Average 5.35 144 5560Std. Dev 0.05 2.08 65% C.V 0.88 1.45 1.17
OGB OGB-19 90 4.015 8.020 5.42 142 5765OGB-20 90 4.023 8.035 5.43 142 5781OGB-21 90 4.018 8.042 5.45 145 5835Average 5.43 143 5794Std. Dev 0.02 1.73 37% C.V 0.28 1.21 0.63
1 lb - 0.4536 kg 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3
N. A - Not Applicable
SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm 1 psi - 0.0069 MPa
B-7
Table BQ7: Cylinder Compressive Strength and Static Modulus of the Optimum Mix with Fly Ash for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate
Mix Specimen Age Diameter Length Static Modulus Dry Unit Weight Comp. StrengthID ID (Days) (in.) (in.) (106 psi) (lb/ft3) (psi)
OQFB OQFB-1 1 3.991 8.075 N. A 149 3519OQFB-2 1 4.004 8.038 N. A 148 3456OQFB-3 1 4.018 8.032 N. A 149 3511Average 149 3496Std. Dev 0.60 34
% C.V 0.40 0.98
OQFB OQFB-4 3 3.962 8.061 N. A 150 4585OQFB-5 3 3.983 8.043 N. A 149 4457OQFB-6 3 4.011 8.048 N. A 148 4395Average 149 4479Std. Dev 1.04 97
% C.V 0.70 2.17
OQFB OQFB-7 7 4.021 8.028 N. A 148 5515OQFB-8 7 4.016 8.014 N. A 149 5489OQFB-9 7 4.005 8.015 N. A 150 5520Average 149 5508Std. Dev 1.15 16
% C.V 0.77 0.30
OQFB OQFB-10 14 4.013 8.011 N. A 149 6368OQFB-11 14 4.021 8.002 N. A 150 6421OQFB-12 14 4.018 8.012 N. A 150 6431Average 150 6407Std. Dev 0.54 34
% C.V 0.36 0.53
OQFB OQFB-13 28 3.970 8.013 6.01 151 6506OQFB-14 28 3.999 8.012 5.95 151 6452OQFB-15 28 4.009 8.019 6.21 150 6460Average 6.06 151 6473Std. Dev 0.14 0.46 29
% C.V 2.24 0.31 0.45
OQFB OQFB-16 56 4.021 8.021 6.16 150 6658OQFB-17 56 4.023 8.019 6.14 150 6572OQFB-18 56 3.887 8.036 6.24 152 6745Average 6.18 151 6658Std. Dev 0.05 1.48 86
% C.V 0.86 0.98 1.30
OQFB OQFB-19 90 4.021 8.091 6.55 149 6815OQFB-20 90 3.999 8.079 6.47 152 6851OQFB-21 90 4.010 8.056 6.43 151 6853Average 6.48 151 6839Std. Dev 0.06 1.53 21.04
% C.V 0.94 1.01 0.31
1 lb - 0.4536 kg 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3
N. A - Not Applicable
SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm 1 psi - 0.0069 MPa
B-8
Table BL8: Cylinder Compressive Strength and Static Modulus of the Optimum Mix with Fly Ash for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate
Mix Specimen Age Diameter Length Static Modulus Dry Unit Weight Comp. StrengthID ID (Days) (in.) (in.) (106 psi) (lb/ft3) (psi)
OLFB OLFB-1 1 3.990 8.170 N. A 149 2599OLFB-2 1 4.000 8.145 N. A 149 2467OLFB-3 1 3.977 8.135 N. A 149 2535Average 149 2534Std. Dev 0.00 66
% C.V 0.00 2.61
OLFB OLFB-4 3 4.027 8.057 N. A 145 3730OLFB-5 3 4.043 8.101 N. A 144 3705OLFB-6 3 4.054 8.253 N. A 145 3698Average 145 3711Std. Dev 0.58 17
% C.V 0.40 0.45
OLFB OLFB-7 7 4.027 8.037 N. A 148 4358OLFB-8 7 4.028 8.055 N. A 147 4498OLFB-9 7 4.022 8.012 N. A 148 4451Average 148 4436Std. Dev 0.58 71
% C.V 0.39 1.61
OLFB OLFB-10 14 3.973 8.138 N. A 152 5335OLFB-11 14 3.998 8.242 N. A 150 5405OLFB-12 14 3.960 8.138 N. A 150 5308Average 151 5349Std. Dev 1.15 50
% C.V 0.77 0.94
OLFB OLFB-13 28 4.030 8.127 5.35 144 5565OLFB-14 28 4.017 8.088 5.41 149 5510OLFB-15 28 3.996 8.202 5.39 148 5659Average 5.38 147 5578Std. Dev 0.03 2.65 75
% C.V 0.57 1.80 1.35
OLFB OLFB-16 56 4.020 8.035 5.78 145 5925OLFB-17 56 4.025 8.035 5.70 146 5900OLFB-18 56 4.025 8.038 5.75 145 5935Average 5.74 145 5920Std. Dev 0.04 0.58 18
% C.V 0.70 0.40 0.30
OLFB OLFB-19 90 4.010 8.035 5.98 144 6263OLFB-20 90 4.011 8.030 6.10 140 6228OLFB-21 90 4.015 8.030 5.98 147 6230Average 6.02 144 6240Std. Dev 0.07 3.51 20
% C.V 1.15 2.44 0.31
1 lb - 0.4536 kg 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3
N. A - Not Applicable
SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm 1 psi - 0.0069 MPa
B-9
Table BG9: Cylinder Compressive Strength and Static Modulus of the Optimum Mix with Fly Ash for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate
Mix Specimen Age Diameter Length Static Modulus Dry Unit Weight Comp. StrengthID ID (Days) (in.) (in.) (106 psi) (lb/ft3) (psi)
OGFB OGFB-1 1 4.039 8.134 N. A 143 2497OGFB-2 1 4.027 8.101 N. A 143 2473OGFB-3 1 4.035 8.152 N. A 143 2541Average 143 2504Std. Dev 0.00 34% C.V 0.00 1.38
OGFB OGFB-4 3 4.013 8.132 N. A 145 3953OGFB-5 3 4.025 8.112 N. A 144 3851OGFB-6 3 4.028 8.124 N. A 144 3923Average 144 3909Std. Dev 0.58 52% C.V 0.40 1.34
OGFB OGFB-7 7 4.031 8.152 N. A 144 4740OGFB-8 7 4.026 8.118 N. A 144 4674OGFB-9 7 4.030 8.109 N. A 144 4664Average 144 4693Std. Dev 0.00 41% C.V 0.00 0.88
OGFB OGFB-10 14 4.025 8.124 N. A 145 5619OGFB-11 14 4.028 8.142 N. A 146 5494OGFB-12 14 4.023 8.138 N. A 144 5508Average 145 5540Std. Dev 1.00 68% C.V 0.69 1.24
OGFB OGFB-13 28 4.011 8.047 5.43 145 5778OGFB-14 28 4.020 8.026 5.42 143 5712OGFB-15 28 4.028 8.023 5.43 145 5769Average 5.43 144 5753Std. Dev 0.01 1.15 36% C.V 0.11 0.80 0.62
OGFB OGFB-16 56 4.025 8.030 5.83 142 6130OGFB-17 56 4.020 8.020 5.83 142 6145OGFB-18 56 4.016 8.038 5.85 140 6236Average 5.84 141 6170Std. Dev 0.01 1.15 57% C.V 0.20 0.82 0.93
OGFB OGFB-19 90 4.013 8.037 6.10 144 6364OGFB-20 90 4.021 8.035 6.12 140 6418OGFB-21 90 4.012 8.032 6.12 147 6448Average 6.11 144 6410Std. Dev 0.01 3.51 43% C.V 0.19 2.44 0.66
1 lb - 0.4536 kg 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3
N. A - Not Applicable
SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm 1 psi - 0.0069 MPa
B-10
Table BQ10: Flexural Strength of the Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete
Mix ID Specimen Age Breadth Depth Flexural StrengthID ( Days ) ( in ) ( in ) ( psi )
CQB CQB -1 14 4.167 4.02 510CQB-2 14 4.074 4.089 525CQB-3 14 4.092 4.056 494
Average 510Std. Dev 15.61
%C.V 3.06
CQB CQB-4 28 4.034 3.897 617CQB-5 28 3.997 3.899 611CQB-6 28 4.02 4.062 602
Average 610Std.Dev 7.77% C.V 1.27
SI Unit Conversion Factors1 Inch -25.4 mm1 lb - 0.4536 kg1 psi - 0.0069 Mpa Table BL11: Flexural Strength of the Control Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete
Mix Specimen Age Breadth Depth Flexural StrengthID ID (Days) (in.) (in.) (psi)
CLB CLB 1 14 4.015 4.001 510CLB 2 14 4.005 4.000 525CLB 3 14 4.005 4.001 515
Average 517Std. Dev 7.64
% C.V 1.48
CLB CLB 4 28 4.025 4.005 583CLB 5 28 4.035 4.000 587CLB 6 28 4.030 4.005 570
Average 580Std. Dev 8.89
% C.V 1.53
SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm 1 lb - 0.4536 kg1 psi - 0.0069 Mpa
B-11
Table BG12: Flexural Strength of the Control Granite Bridge Deck Concrete
Mix Specimen Age Breadth Depth Flexural StrengthID ID (Days) (in.) (in.) (psi)
CGB CGB 1 14 4.010 4.004 526CGB 2 14 4.008 3.998 533CGB 3 14 4.006 3.990 537
Average 532Std. Dev 5.57
% C.V 1.05
CGB CGB 4 28 4.035 4.009 602CGB 5 28 4.050 4.000 615CGB 6 28 4.038 4.002 606
Average 608Std. Dev 6.66
% C.V 1.10
SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm 1 lb - 0.4536 kg1 psi - 0.0069 Mpa Table BQ13: Flexural Strength of the Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete
Mix ID Specimen Age Breadth Depth Flexural StrengthID ( Days ) ( in ) ( in ) ( psi )
OQB OQB -1 14 4.092 4.088 512OQB-2 14 4.088 4.078 535OQB-3 14 4.018 4.056 545
Average 531Std. Dev 17.24
%C.V 3.25
OQB OQB-4 28 4.079 4.078 640OQB-5 28 4.068 4.062 626OQB-6 28 4.051 4.085 611
Average 625Std.Dev 14.43% C.V 2.31
SI Unit Conversion Factors1 Inch -25.4 mm1 lb - 0.4536 kg1 psi - 0.0069 Mpa
B-12
Table BL14: Flexural Strength of the Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete Without Fly Ash
Mix Specimen Age Breadth Depth Flexural StrengthID ID (Days) (in.) (in.) (psi)
OLB OLB 1 14 4.018 4.005 555OLB 2 14 4.020 4.005 535OLB 3 14 4.025 4.000 535
Average 542Std. Dev 11.55
% C.V 2.13
OLB OLB 4 28 4.020 4.010 610OLB 5 28 4.020 4.015 605OLB 6 28 4.025 4.010 605
Average 607Std. Dev 2.89
% C.V 0.48
SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm 1 lb - 0.4536 kg1 psi - 0.0069 Mpa Table BG15: Flexural Strength of the Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete Without Fly Ash
Mix Specimen Age Breadth Depth Flexural StrengthID ID (Days) (in.) (in.) (psi)
OGB OGB 1 14 4.026 3.999 570OGB 2 14 4.032 4.002 566OGB 3 14 4.040 4.000 566
Average 567Std. Dev 2.31
% C.V 0.41
OGB OGB 4 28 4.023 3.998 624OGB 5 28 4.030 3.988 625OGB 6 28 4.000 4.005 637
Average 629Std. Dev 7.23
% C.V 1.15
SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm 1 lb - 0.4536 kg1 psi - 0.0069 Mpa
B-13
Table BQ16 (a): Flexural Strength of the Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash (Trial)
Mix ID Specimen Age Breadth Depth Flexural StrengthID ( Days ) ( in ) ( in ) ( psi )
OQFB OQFB -1 14 4.034 4.038 511OQFB-2 14 4.029 4.062 505OQFB-3 14 4.015 4.089 516Average 511Std. Dev 5.36
%C.V 1.05
OQFB OQFB-4 28 4.038 4.021 600OQFB-5 28 4.099 4.072 618OQFB-6 28 4.031 4.045 605Average 608Std.Dev 9.10% C.V 1.50
SI Unit Conversion Factors1 Inch -25.4 mm1 lb - 0.4536 kg1 psi - 0.0069 Mpa Table BQ16: Flexural Strength of the Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash
Mix ID Specimen Age Breadth Depth Flexural StrengthID ( Days ) ( in ) ( in ) ( psi )
OQFB OQFB -1 14 4.021 4.094 602OQFB-2 14 4.063 4.039 613OQFB-3 14 4.029 4.055 613Average 609Std. Dev 5.93
%C.V 0.97
OQFB OQFB-4 28 4.039 4.039 701OQFB-5 28 4.072 4.071 716OQFB-6 28 4.048 4.042 730Average 716Std.Dev 14.58% C.V 2.04
SI Unit Conversion Factors1 Inch -25.4 mm1 lb - 0.4536 kg1 psi - 0.0069 Mpa
B-14
Table BL17: Flexural Strength of the Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash
M ix Specim en Age Breadth D epth F lexura l S trengthID ID (D ays) (in .) (in .) (ps i)
O LFB O LFB 1 14 4.010 4.005 610O LFB 2 14 4.015 4.005 615O LFB 3 14 4.015 4.008 613Average 613Std . D ev 2.52
% C .V 0.41
O LFB O LFB 4 28 4.005 4.005 676O LFB 5 28 4.010 4.010 654O LFB 6 28 4.025 3.995 655Average 662Std . D ev 12.42
% C .V 1.88
SI U nit C onversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 m m 1 lb - 0 .4536 kg1 ps i - 0 .0069 M pa Table BG18: Flexural Strength of the Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash
Mix Specimen Age Breadth Depth Flexural StrengthID ID (Days) (in.) (in.) (psi)
OGFB OGFB 1 14 4.015 4.000 613OGFB 2 14 4.022 4.004 623OGFB 3 14 4.000 4.016 660Average 632Std. Dev 24.76
% C.V 3.92
OGFB OGFB 4 28 4.033 3.999 676OGFB 5 28 4.000 4.000 680OGFB 6 28 4.001 4.007 700Average 685Std. Dev 12.86
% C.V 1.88
SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm 1 lb - 0.4536 kg1 psi - 0.0069 Mpa
B-15
Table BQ19: Cylinder Compressive Strength and Static Modulus of the Control Mix for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate (for 8.4%)
Mix Specimen Age Diameter Length Static Modulus Dry Unit Weight Comp. StrengthID ID (Days) (in.) (in.) (106 psi) (lb/ft3) (psi)
CQB CQB-1 1 4.000 8.008 N. A 147 1532CQB-2 1 3.993 8.015 N. A 148 1597CQB-3 1 4.002 8.022 N. A 148 1650
Average 148 1593Std. Dev 0.58 59% C.V 0.39 3.71
CQB CQB-4 3 4.007 8.012 N. A 147 3231CQB-5 3 4.032 8.020 N. A 149 3524CQB-6 3 4.010 8.008 N. A 148 3602
Average 148 3452Std. Dev 1.00 196% C.V 0.68 5.67
CQB CQB-7 7 4.007 8.022 N. A 147 4124CQB-8 7 4.000 8.015 N. A 148 4057CQB-9 7 4.022 8.007 N. A 148 4055
Average 148 4079Std. Dev 0.58 39% C.V 0.39 0.96
CQB CQB-10 14 4.022 8.015 N. A 148 4685CQB-11 14 4.008 8.020 N. A 149 4795CQB-12 14 4.005 8.017 N. A 149 4763Average 149 4748Std. Dev 0.58 57% C.V 0.39 1.19
CQB CQB-13 28 4.000 8.072 4.86 150 5449CQB-14 28 3.998 8.057 4.87 150 5339CQB-15 28 4.002 8.077 4.86 149 5366Average 4.86 150 5385Std. Dev 0.01 0.58 57% C.V 0.12 0.39 1.06
CQB CQB-16 56 3.998 8.020 4.87 150 5468CQB-17 56 4.000 8.012 5.47 152 5770CQB-18 56 4.002 8.012 4.86 149 5384Average 5.07 150 5541Std. Dev 0.35 1.53 203% C.V 6.89 1.02 3.66
CQB CQB-19 90 3.998 8.022 5.48 149 5735CQB-20 90 4.006 8.030 5.45 150 5729CQB-21 90 4.003 8.033 5.46 150 5760Average 5.46 150 5741Std. Dev 0.02 0.58 16% C.V 0.28 0.39 0.29
SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm 1 psi - 0.0069 MPa 1 lb - 0.4536 kgN. A - Not Applicable
1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3
B-16
Table: BQ20: Cylinder Compressive Strength and Static Modulus of the Optimum Mix without Fly Ash for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate (for 8.4 %)
Mix Specimen Age Diameter Length Static Modulus Dry Unit Weight Comp. StrengthID ID (Days) (in.) (in.) (106 psi) (lb/ft3) (psi)
OQB OQB-1 1 3.995 8.028 N. A 148 2314OQB-2 1 3.998 8.015 N. A 149 2231OQB-3 1 4.007 8.022 N. A 149 2220
Average 149 2255Std. Dev 0.58 51% C.V 0.39 2.28
OQB OQB-4 3 4.027 8.005 N. A 149 4121OQB-5 3 4.028 8.017 N. A 149 4317OQB-6 3 3.998 8.010 N. A 151 4303
Average 150 4247Std. Dev 1.15 109% C.V 0.77 2.57
OQB OQB-7 7 4.023 8.010 N. A 149 4721OQB-8 7 4.022 8.010 N. A 148 4409OQB-9 7 4.002 8.022 N. A 149 4412
Average 149 4514Std. Dev 0.58 179% C.V 0.39 3.97
OQB OQB-10 14 4.018 8.020 N. A 148 4928OQB-11 14 4.013 8.020 N. A 148 4980OQB-12 14 4.007 8.007 N. A 150 4997Average 149 4968Std. Dev 1.15 36% C.V 0.78 0.72
OQB OQB-13 28 4.008 8.077 5.13 148 5626OQB-14 28 4.027 8.065 5.08 150 5534OQB-15 28 4.023 8.048 5.41 149 5743Average 5.21 149 5634Std. Dev 0.18 1.00 105% C.V 3.42 0.67 1.86
OQB OQB-16 56 4.025 8.023 5.76 149 5895OQB-17 56 4.020 8.008 5.42 151 5752OQB-18 56 4.010 8.012 5.44 152 5780Average 5.54 151 5809Std. Dev 0.19 1.53 76% C.V 3.44 1.01 1.30
OQB OQB-19 90 4.020 8.020 5.78 151 5968OQB-20 90 4.010 8.025 5.81 152 6096OQB-21 90 4.015 8.030 5.79 152 6012Average 5.79 152 6025Std. Dev 0.02 0.58 65% C.V 0.26 0.38 1.08
SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm 1 psi - 0.0069 MPa 1 lb - 0.4536 kg 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3
N. A - Not Applicable
B-17
Table: BQ21: Cylinder Compressive Strength and Static Modulus of the Optimum Mix with Fly Ash for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate (for 8.4 %)
Mix Specimen Age Diameter Length Static Modulus Dry Unit Weight Comp. StrengthID ID (Days) (in.) (in.) (106 psi) (lb/ft3) (psi)
OQFB OQFB-1 1 4.026 8.027 N. A 149 2553OQFB-2 1 4.028 8.023 N. A 150 2590OQFB-3 1 4.027 8.020 N. A 149 2590Average 149 2578Std. Dev 0.58 21% C.V 0.39 0.83
OQFB OQFB-4 3 4.022 8.022 N. A 149 4567OQFB-5 3 4.025 8.025 N. A 149 4638OQFB-6 3 4.022 8.035 N. A 150 4409Average 149 4538Std. Dev 0.58 117% C.V 0.39 2.58
OQFB OQFB-7 7 4.000 8.015 N. A 150 5370OQFB-8 7 4.012 8.017 N. A 151 5538OQFB-9 7 4.007 8.007 N. A 149 5710Average 150 5539Std. Dev 1.00 170% C.V 0.67 3.07
OQFB OQFB-10 14 4.005 8.007 N. A 149 6350OQFB-11 14 3.998 8.007 N. A 150 6332OQFB-12 14 4.020 8.005 N. A 151 6303Average 150 6328Std. Dev 1.00 24% C.V 0.67 0.37
OQFB OQFB-13 28 4.002 8.056 6.25 152 6624OQFB-14 28 4.007 8.033 6.23 150 6542OQFB-15 28 4.017 8.042 6.20 151 6588Average 6.23 151 6585Std. Dev 0.03 1.00 41% C.V 0.40 0.66 0.62
OQFB OQFB-16 56 3.998 8.014 6.26 152 6771OQFB-17 56 3.995 8.012 6.27 153 6754OQFB-18 56 4.000 8.021 6.25 151 6751Average 6.26 152 6759Std. Dev 0.01 1.00 11% C.V 0.16 0.66 0.16
OQFB OQFB-19 90 4.007 8.017 6.71 153 6980OQFB-20 90 4.013 8.030 6.69 150 6878OQFB-21 90 4.000 8.020 6.73 152 7083Average 6.71 152 6980Std. Dev 0.02 1.53 103% C.V 0.30 1.01 1.47
1 lb - 0.4536 kg 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3
SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm 1 psi - 0.0069 MPa
N. A - Not Applicable
B-18
Table BQ22: Flexural Strength of the Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete
Mix Specimen Age Breadth Depth Flexural StrengthID ID (Days) (in.) (in.) (psi)
CQB CQB 1 14 4.067 3.988 548CQB 2 14 4.038 3.993 550CQB 3 14 4.070 4.000 555
Average 551Std. Dev 3.61% C.V. 0.65
CQB CQB 4 28 4.085 4.083 617CQB 5 28 4.007 3.998 637CQB 6 28 4.067 4.063 608
Average 621Std. Dev 14.84% C.V. 2.39
1 psi - 0.0069 MPa 1 lb - 0.4536 kg
SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm
Table BQ23: Flexural Strength of the Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash
Mix Specimen Age Breadth Depth Flexural StrengthID ID (Days) (in.) (in.) (psi)
OQB OQB 1 14 4.050 3.980 552OQB 2 14 4.065 3.995 536OQB 3 14 3.993 3.985 586
Average 558Std. Dev 25.53% C.V. 4.58
OQB OQB 4 28 4.073 4.068 623OQB 5 28 4.068 4.007 661OQB 6 28 4.063 3.993 648
Average 644Std. Dev 19.31% C.V. 3.00
SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm1 lb - 0.4536 kg1 psi - 0.0069 MPa
B-19
Table BQ24: Flexural Strength of the Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash
Mix Specimen Age Breadth Depth Flexural StrengthID ID (Days) (in.) (in.) (psi)
OQFB OQFB 1 14 4.052 4.007 635OQFB 2 14 4.048 3.990 640OQFB 3 14 4.028 4.018 634Average 636Std. Dev 3.21% C.V. 0.51
OQFB OQFB 4 28 4.070 3.985 724OQFB 5 28 4.051 4.022 732OQFB 6 28 4.002 3.999 731Average 729Std. Dev 4.36% C.V. 0.60
1 lb - 0.4536 kg1 psi - 0.0069 MPa
SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
CQB45
OQB45
OQFB45
CQB45
A
OQB45
A
OQFB45
A
CQB40
OQB40
OQFB40
CQB43
OQB43
OQFB43
CQB42
OQB42
R
O
QFB42 R
Mix Designation
Com
pres
sive
Str
engt
h (p
si)
Figure BQ1: 28 Day Compressive Strengths of Trial Bridge Deck Concretes With Quartzite Aggregate
B-20
Figure BL2: 28 Day Compressive Strengths of Trial Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
OGB T(1)
OGFB T(1)
2O
GFB T(1)
OGB T(2)
OGFB T(2)
CGB T(1)
OGFB T(1)
-2
OGFB T(2)
-2
Mix Designation
Com
pres
sive
Str
engt
h (p
si)
Figure BG3: 28 Day Compressive Strengths of Trial Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate
Appendix – C
Details of Setting Times for all concretes with Quartzite, Limestone and Granite Aggregate
C-1
Table CQ1 (a): Observations of Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete for Initial and Final Setting Time
ote: This mix was made with 8.4 percent cement reduction.
able CQ1: Observations of Control Quartzite Bridge Deck
Time Time No. of Dia of Area of Penetration Tested Elapsed (min) Divisions Needle (in) Needle (in2) Resistance (psi)
9:35 PM 195 16 1.00 0.7854 20.3710:05 PM 225 24 1.00 0.7854 30.5610:35 PM 255 76 1.00 0.7854 96.7711:05 PM 285 72 0.50 0.1963 366.7011:35 PM 315 53 0.25 0.0491 1079.7411:50 PM 330 89 0.25 0.0491 1813.1512:00 PM 340 45 0.10 0.0079 5729.7512:05 PM 345 65 0.10 0.0079 8276.30
N T Concrete for Initial and Final Setting Time
Time Time No. of Dia of Area of Penetration Tested Elapsed (min) Divisions Needle (in) Needle (in2) Resistance (psi)1:30 110 0 1.00 0.7854 0.001:45 125 7 1.00 0.7854 8.912:15 155 34 1.00 0.7854 43.292:45 185 91 1.00 0.7854 115.873:00 200 123 1.00 0.7854 156.613:15 215 101 0.50 0.1963 514.403:30 230 71 0.25 0.0491 1446.443:45 245 123 0.25 0.0491 2505.813:50 250 128 0.25 0.0491 2607.674:00 260 61 0.1 0.00785 7766.994:10 270 77 0.1 0.00785 9804.23
able CQ2 (a): Observations of Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck ing Time
T Concrete without Fly Ash for Initial and Final Sett
Time Time No. of Dia of Area of Penetration Tested Elapsed (min) Divisions Needle (in) Needle (in2) Resistance (psi)
8:05 PM 180 10 1.00 0.7854 12.738:35 PM 210 33 1.00 0.7854 42.029:05 PM 240 64 1.00 0.7854 81.499:35 PM 270 82 0.50 0.1963 417.6310:05 PM 300 82 0.25 0.0491 1670.5410:15 PM 310 45 0.10 0.0079 5729.7510:25 PM 320 65 0.10 0.0079 8276.3010:35 PM 330 85 0.10 0.0079 10822.86
C-2
Note: This mix was made with 8.4 percent cement reduction. Table CQ2: Observations of Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash for Initial and Final Setting Time
Time Time No. of Dia of Area of Penetration Tested Elapsed (min) Divisions Needle (in) Needle (in2) Resistance (psi)10:30 180 11 1.00 0.7854 14.011:45 195 31 1.00 0.7854 39.472:15 225 127 1.00 0.7854 161.712:45 255 126 0.50 0.1963 641.733:00 270 94 0.25 0.0491 1915.013:05 275 105 0.25 0.0491 2139.113:15 285 116 0.25 0.0491 2363.203:20 290 35 0.1 0.00785 4456.473:25 295 55 0.1 0.00785 7003.023:30 300 77 0.1 0.00785 9804.233:45 315 101 0.1 0.00785 12860.10
Table CQ3 (a): Observations of Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash for Initial and Final Setting Time
Time Time No. of Dia of Area of Penetration Tested Elapsed (min) Divisions Needle (in) Needle (in2) Resistance (psi)
3:15 PM 180 4 1.00 0.7854 5.094:30 PM 255 11 1.00 0.7854 14.015:25 PM 310 27 1.00 0.7854 34.386:15 PM 360 85 1.00 0.7854 108.236:45 PM 390 95 0.50 0.1963 483.857:05 PM 410 122 0.50 0.1963 621.367:15 PM 420 82 0.25 0.0491 1670.547:30 PM 435 35 0.10 0.0079 4456.477:40 PM 445 52 0.10 0.0079 6621.047:45 PM 450 64 0.10 0.0079 8148.97
Note: This mix was made with 8.4 percent cement reduction. Table CQ3: Observations of Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash for Initial and Final Setting Time
Time Time No. of Dia of Area of Penetration Tested Elapsed (min) Divisions Needle (in) Needle (in2) Resistance (psi)
2:00 210 8 1.00 0.7854 10.192:30 240 120 1.00 0.7854 152.793:10 280 56 0.50 0.1963 285.213:30 300 112 0.50 0.1963 570.433:45 315 77 0.25 0.0491 1568.684:05 335 61 0.10 0.00785 7766.994:35 365 110 0.10 0.00785 14006.05
C-3
Table CL4 (a): Observations of Trial Mix of Control Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete for Initial and Final Setting Time
Time Time No. of Dia of Area of Penetration Tested Elapsed(min) Divisions Needle (in) Needle (in2) Resistance (psi)16:45 195 115 1.000 0.785 14617:15 225 58 0.500 0.196 29617:45 255 110 0.500 0.196 560.018:00 270 79 0.250 0.049 160918:15 285 50 0.100 0.008 641018:30 300 80 0.100 0.008 10256
Note: This mix was made with 15 percent cement reduction. Table CL4: Observations of Control Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete for Initial and Final Setting Time
Time Time No. of Dia of Area of Penetration Tested Elapsed(min) Divisions Needle (in) Needle (in2) Resistance (psi)17:00 150 25 1.000 0.78500 3217:30 180 49 1.000 0.78500 6218:00 210 89 0.500 0.19625 45418:30 240 125 0.500 0.19625 63719:00 270 85 0.250 0.04906 173219:05 275 54 0.100 0.00785 687919:15 285 83 0.100 0.00785 10573
Table CL5 (a): Observations of Trail Mix of Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash for Initial and Final Setting Time
Time Time No. of Dia of Area of Penetration Tested Elapsed(min) Divisions Needle (in) Needle (in2) Resistance (psi)17:15 160 42 1.000 0.785 5317:45 180 53 1.000 0.785 6718:15 210 58 0.500 0.196 29518:30 225 70 0.500 0.196 35718:45 240 82 0.250 0.049 167319:00 255 125 0.250 0.049 255119:15 270 85 0.100 0.008 10897
Note: This mix was made with 15 percent cement reduction. Table CL5: Observations of Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash for Initial and Final Setting Time
Time Time No. of Dia of Area of Penetration Tested Elapsed(min) Divisions Needle (in) Needle (in2) Resistance (psi)17:00 245 120 1.000 0.78500 15317:15 260 99 0.500 0.19625 50417:30 275 130 0.500 0.19625 66218:00 305 56 0.250 0.04906 114118:10 315 125 0.250 0.04906 254818:15 320 52 0.100 0.00785 662418:20 325 82 0.100 0.00785 10446
C-4
Table CL6 (a): Observations of Trial Mix of Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash for Initial and Final Setting Time
106596
24497875
Time Time No. of Dia of Area of Penetration Tested Elapsed(min) Divisions Needle (in) Needle (in2) Resistance (psi)19:00 195 10 1.000 0.785 1319:30 225 15 1.000 0.785 1920:00 255 25 1.000 0.785 3220:30 285 45 1.000 0.785 5721:00 315 83 1.000 0.78522:00 375 117 0.500 0.19622:15 390 120 0.250 0.04922:30 405 63 0.100 0.008
Note: This mix was made with 15 percent cement reduction. Table CL6: Observations of Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash for Initial and Final Setting Time
1.000 0.785 15717:30 370 125 0.500 0.196 63817:45 385 86 0.250 0.049 175518:00 400 57 0.100 0.008 712518:15 415 71 0.100 0.008 887518:20 420 87 0.100 0.008 10875
Time Time No. of Dia of Area of Penetration Tested Elapsed(min) Divisions Needle (in) Needle (in2) Resistance (psi)15:30 250 12 1.000 0.785 1516:00 280 22 1.000 0.785 2816:30 310 35 1.000 0.785 45
1.000 0.785 7917:00 340 6217:15 355 123
Table CG7: Observations of the Control Granite Bridge Deck Concrete for Initial and Final Setting Time
Time Time No. of Dia of Area of Penetration Tested Elapsed(min) Divisions Needle (in) Needle (in2) Resistance (psi)
15:42 pm 195 76 1.00 0.7854 96.7715:58 pm 210 64 0.50 0.1964 325.8716:10 pm 222 38 0.25 0.0491 773.9316:16 pm 228 64 0.25 0.0491 1303.4616:30 pm 242 35 0.10 0.0078 4487.1816:33 pm 245 42 0.10 0.0078 5384.62
C-5
Table CG8: Observations of the Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Time Concrete without Fly Ash for Initial and Final Setting
Time Time No. of Dia of Area of Penetration
Tested Elapsed(min) Divisions Needle (in) Needle (in2) Resistance (psi)14:55 pm 205 48 1.00 0.7854 61.1215:15 pm 225 34 0.50 0.1964 173.1215:49 pm 259 66 0.25 0.0491 1344.2016:06 pm 276 41 0.10 0.0078 5256.4116:13 pm 283 64 0.10 0.0078 8205.13
Table CG9: Observations of the Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash for Initial and Final Setting Time
Time Time No. of Dia of Area of Penetration Tested Elapsed(min) Divisions Needle (in) Needle (in2) Resistance (psi)
15:00 pm 257 8 1.00 0.7854 10.1955
16:00 pm 317 44 1.00 0.7854 56.0316:30 pm 347 50 0.50 0.1964 254.5817:00 pm 377 58 0.25 0.0491 1181.2617:15 pm 392 32 0.10 0.0078 4102.5617:30 pm 407 65 0.10 0.0078 8276.30
15:30 pm 287 13 1.00 0.7854 16.
Figure CQ1 (a): Time vs. Penetration Resistance for Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete
ote: This mix was made with 8.4 percent cement reduction.
0
1
1 00
2 00
2 00
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Time Elapsed (Minutes)
Pene
trat
ion
Res
ista
nce
(psi
)
N
500
000
5
0
5
Initial Setting Time = 290 min
Final Setting Time = 335 min
C-6
0
500
5000
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Time Elapsed (Mins)
tion
Res
ista
nce
(psi
) Final Setting Time = 255 minPe
netr
a
Initial Setting Time = 212 min
Figure CQ1: Time vs. Penetration Resistance for Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300Time Elapsed (min)
Pene
tratio
n R
esis
tanc
e (p
si)
Final Setting Time = 280 min
Initial Setting Time = 252 min
Figure CL2 (a): Time vs. Penetration Resistance of Control Limestone Bridge
Note: This mix was made with 15 percent cement reduction.
Deck Concrete
C-7
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
00 150 200 250 300Time Ela
Final Setting Time = 273 min
Initial Settin
Pene
tratio
n R
esis
tanc
e (p
si)
g
0 50 1psed (min)
Time = 217 min
Figure CL2: Time vs. Penetration Resistance for Control Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
Pene
trat
ion
Res
ista
nce
(psi
)
Final Setting Time = 241 min
Initial Setting Time = 216 min
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Time Elapsed (min) ite Bridge Deck Concrete
Figure CG3: Time vs. Penetration Resistance for Control Gran
C-8
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Time Elapsed (Minutes)
Pene
trat
ion
Res
ista
nce
(psi
)
Initial Setting Time = 272 min
Final Setting Time = 309 min
Figure CQ4 (a): Time vs. Penetration Resistance for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash Note: This mix was made with 8.4 percent cement reduction.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Time Elapsed (Mins)
Pene
trat
ion
Res
ista
nce
(psi
)
Initial Setting Time = 250 min
Final Setting Time = 292 min
Figure CQ4: Time vs. Penetration Resistance for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash
C-9
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300Time Elapsed (min)
Pene
tratio
n R
esis
tanc
e (p
si)
Final Setting Time = 259 min
Initial Setting Time = 228 min
Figu
Ash
re CL5 (a): Time vs. Penetration Resistance of Trial Mix for Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Note: This mix was made with 15 percent cement reduction.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350Time Elapsed (min)
Pene
tratio
n R
esis
tanc
e (p
si)
Final Setting Time = 317 min
Initial Setting Time = 260 i
Figure CL5: Time vs. Penetration Resistance for Opti Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash
mum Limestone
C-10
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Time Elapsed (min)
Pene
trat
ion
Res
ista
nce
(psi
)Final Setting Time = 272 min
Initial Setting Time = 241 min
Figure CG6: Time vs. Penetration Resistance for Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash
Figure CQ7 (a): Time vs. Penetration Resistance for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 100 200 300 400 500Time Elapsed (Minutes)
Pene
trat
ion
Res
ista
nce
(psi
)
Initial Setting Time = 392
Final Setting Time = 433 min
Note: This mix was made with 8.4 percent cement reduction.
C-11
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Time Elapsed (Mins)
Pene
trat
ion
Res
ista
nce
(psi
)
Initial Setting Time = 295 min
Final Setting Time = 325 min
mum Quartzite
Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash
Figure CQ7: Time vs. Penetration Resistance for Opti
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450Time Elapsed (min)
Pene
tratio
n R
esis
tanc
e (p
si)
Final Setting Time = 393 min
Initial Setting Time = 368 min
Figure CL8 (a): Time vs. Penetration Resistance of Trial Mix for Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash Note: This mix was made with 15 percent cement reduction.
C-12
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450Time Elapsed (min)
Pene
tratio
n R
esis
tanc
e (p
si)
Final Setting Time = 391 min
Initial Setting Time = 366 min
Figure CL8: Time vs. Penetration Resistance for Optimum Limestone
Ash Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Time Elapsed (min)
Pene
trat
ion
Res
ista
nce
(psi
) Final Setting Time = 392 min
Initial Setting Time = 361 min
Figure CG9: Time vs. Penetration Resistance for Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash
Appendix – D
Details of mixes done for the determination of resistance to Sulfate Attack
D-1
Table DQ1 (a): Mean Expansion of the Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete Exposed to Sulfate Solution
able DQ1: Mean Expansion of the Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete
Time Mean1 2 3 4 5 6 Expansion
(weeks) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.000001 0.01100 0.01650 0.01950 0.01450 0.01400 0.01850 0.015672 0.01700 0.02100 0.02100 0.01900 0.02050 0.01950 0.019673 0.02050 0.02450 0.02450 0.02400 0.02300 0.02250 0.023174 0.02350 0.02650 0.02650 0.02500 0.02550 0.02600 0.025508 0.02500 0.02800 0.02750 0.02700 0.02650 0.02700 0.02683
13 0.02600 0.02900 0.02850 0.02600 0.02800 0.02950 0.0278015 0.02650 0.03000 0.02900 0.02700 0.03050 0.02800 0.02850
Length Change (%)Specimen No.
T Exposed to Sulfate Solution
Time Mean(weeks) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Expansion
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.000001 0.01100 0.01300 0.01350 0.01300 0.01400 0.01300 0.012922 0.02000 0.01900 0.01950 0.01900 0.02000 0.01950 0.019503 0.02150 0.02050 0.02300 0.02200 0.02250 0.02050 0.021674 0.02400 0.02300 0.02600 0.02450 0.02400 0.02150 0.023838 0.02600 0.02450 0.02850 0.02550 0.02550 0.02300 0.02550
13 0.02750 0.02600 0.03000 0.02650 0.02700 0.02450 0.0269215 0.02850 0.02700 0.03100 0.02750 0.02800 0.02550 0.02792
Length Change (%)Specimen No.
D-2
Table DL2: Mean Expansion of the Control Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete Exposed to Sulfate Solution
Time Mean(weeks) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Expansion
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.000001 0.00850 0.01400 0.01400 0.01300 0.02050 0.01800 0.014672 0.01700 0.01850 0.01750 0.01550 0.02050 0.01950 0.018083 0.02250 0.02450 0.01900 0.01700 0.02050 0.01950 0.020504 0.02400 0.02450 0.02000 0.01950 0.02150 0.02050 0.021678 0.02450 0.02500 0.02550 0.02050 0.02300 0.02150 0.02333
13 0.02550 0.02650 0.02650 0.02200 0.02550 0.02300 0.0248315 0.02600 0.02750 0.02800 0.02450 0.02600 0.02350 0.02592
Length Change (%)Specimen No.
Table DG3: Mean Expansion of the Control Granite Bridge Deck Concrete Exposed to Sulfate Solution
Time Mean(weeks) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Expansion
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.000001 0.00750 0.01300 0.01500 0.01150 0.01950 0.01700 0.013922 0.01950 0.01900 0.01800 0.01950 0.01900 0.01700 0.018673 0.02100 0.02250 0.02150 0.02200 0.02250 0.01950 0.021504 0.02300 0.02350 0.02500 0.02400 0.02400 0.02050 0.023338 0.02450 0.02450 0.02750 0.02650 0.02550 0.02200 0.0250813 0.02650 0.02600 0.02900 0.02850 0.02700 0.02450 0.0269215 0.02750 0.02750 0.03100 0.02950 0.02900 0.02550 0.02833
Length Change (%)Specimen No.
able DQ4 (a): Mean Expansion of the Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete T without Fly Ash Exposed to Sulfate Solution
Time Mean1 2 3 4 5 6 Expansion
(weeks) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.000001 0.01750 0.00800 0.01350 0.01350 0.01150 0.01500 0.013172 0.02300 0.01250 0.01800 0.01550 0.01500 0.01950 0.017253 0.02700 0.01650 0.02100 0.01900 0.02150 0.02000 0.020834 0.02950 0.01850 0.02300 0.02050 0.02450 0.02150 0.022928 0.03100 0.02000 0.02450 0.02150 0.02700 0.02150 0.02425
13 0.03150 0.02050 0.02500 0.02200 0.02750 0.02200 0.0247215 0.03250 0.02050 0.02500 0.02300 0.02900 0.02150 0.02525
Length Change (%)Specimen No.
D-3
Table DQ4: Mean Expansion of the Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash Exposed to Sulfate Solution
Time Mean(weeks) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Expansion
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.000001 0.01050 0.01050 0.00950 0.00950 0.01300 0.01200 0.010832 0.01400 0.01400 0.01250 0.01350 0.01600 0.01500 0.014173 0.01750 0.01700 0.01600 0.01700 0.01850 0.01850 0.017424 0.02000 0.01950 0.01850 0.02000 0.01950 0.02000 0.019588 0.02100 0.02050 0.01950 0.02150 0.02200 0.02050 0.0208313 0.02250 0.02150 0.02050 0.02300 0.02350 0.02150 0.0215015 0.02400 0.02300 0.02150 0.02400 0.02450 0.02250 0.02200
Length Change (%)Specimen No.
Table DL5: Mean Expansion of the Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash Exposed to Sulfate Solution
Time Mean(weeks) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Expansion
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.000001 0.01650 0.01500 0.00750 0.01500 0.00850 0.01350 0.012672 0.02200 0.01800 0.01050 0.01650 0.01150 0.01700 0.015923 0.02550 0.01950 0.01550 0.01800 0.01450 0.01950 0.018754 0.02550 0.02100 0.01650 0.01850 0.01800 0.01950 0.019838 0.02900 0.02100 0.01900 0.01850 0.02150 0.02050 0.02158
13 0.03150 0.02250 0.02100 0.01900 0.02150 0.02000 0.0225815 0.03300 0.02100 0.02150 0.02050 0.02200 0.02150 0.02325
Length Change (%)Specimen No.
Table DG6: Mean Expansion of the Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash Exposed to Sulfate Solution
Time Mean(weeks) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Expansion
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.000001 0.01200 0.01100 0.01250 0.01295 0.01250 0.01000 0.011832 0.01750 0.01550 0.01350 0.01500 0.01800 0.01550 0.015833 0.01900 0.02000 0.01850 0.01750 0.01950 0.01900 0.018924 0.02200 0.02100 0.02100 0.01950 0.02250 0.02100 0.021178 0.02250 0.02250 0.02350 0.02000 0.02500 0.02200 0.0225813 0.02350 0.02350 0.02500 0.02150 0.02550 0.02300 0.0236715 0.02400 0.02450 0.02600 0.02250 0.02700 0.02350 0.02458
Length Change (%)Specimen No.
D-4
Table DQ7 (a): Mean Expansion of the Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash Exposed to Sulfate Solution
Time Mean(weeks) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Expansio
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.000001 0.01050 0.01000 0.01000 0.01100 0.00950 0.00950 0.010082 0.01350 0.01300 0.01350 0.01450 0.01250 0.01300 0.013333 0.01600 0.01650 0.01650 0.01700 0.01600 0.01650 0.016424 0.01850 0.01800 0.01800 0.01700 0.01800 0.01750 0.017838 0.02050 0.02050 0.01950 0.02000 0.01950 0.01950 0.01992
1315
Specimen No.Length Change (%)
n
Table DQ7: Mean Expansion of the Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash Exposed to Sulfate Solution
Time Mean(weeks) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Expansion
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.000001 0.00900 0.00950 0.00850 0.00900 0.00900 0.00900 0.009002 0.01100 0.01100 0.01200 0.01250 0.01200 0.01250 0.011833 0.01500 0.01550 0.01000 0.01550 0.01550 0.01600 0.015584 0.01650 0.01600 0.01750 0.01700 0.01700 0.01750 0.016928 0.01750 0.01750 0.01850 0.01800 0.01850 0.01850 0.0180813 0.01850 0.01850 0.01950 0.01900 0.01950 0.01900 0.0191715 0.01950 0.01950 0.02100 0.02000 0.02100 0.02000 0.01950
Length Change (%)Specimen No.
Table DL8: Mean Expansion of the Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash Exposed to Sulfate Solution
Time Mean(weeks) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Expansion
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.000001 0.01200 0.01200 0.00700 0.01000 0.01500 0.01400 0.011672 0.01505 0.01450 0.00900 0.01250 0.01750 0.01650 0.014183 0.01600 0.01750 0.01050 0.01450 0.02000 0.01800 0.016084 0.01800 0.01900 0.01350 0.01600 0.02250 0.01950 0.018088 0.01950 0.02450 0.01450 0.01650 0.02300 0.02000 0.01967
13 0.01950 0.02500 0.01600 0.01750 0.02350 0.02150 0.0205015 0.02000 0.02500 0.01650 0.01850 0.02450 0.02200 0.02108
Specimen No.Length Change (%)
D-5
Table DG9: Mean Expansion of the Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash Exposed to Sulfate Solution
Time Mean(weeks) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Expansion
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.000001 0.00900 0.00850 0.00850 0.01050 0.01100 0.01000 0.009582 0.01200 0.01400 0.01350 0.01450 0.01450 0.01250 0.013503 0.01600 0.01650 0.01700 0.01950 0.01550 0.01500 0.016584 0.01800 0.01950 0.01800 0.02050 0.01600 0.01650 0.018088 0.01850 0.02050 0.02050 0.02100 0.01700 0.01700 0.0190813 0.02000 0.02150 0.02200 0.02350 0.02000 0.01950 0.0210815 0.02150 0.02300 0.02400 0.02250 0.02200 0.02100 0.02233
Specimen No.Length Change (%)
Appendix – E
Details of mixes done for the determination of Rapid Chloride Permeability Test
E-1
Table EQ1 (a): Rapid Chloride Permeability Values for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregates
MIX Age Fly Ash Air Number Average Permeability RemarksID of (Coluombs) ASTM C 1202
(Days) (%) (%) Specimens classification
CQB 56 0 5.2 4 7669 High
OQB 56 0 5.0 4 6750 High
OQFB 56 25 6.2 4 2075 Moderate
CQB 90 0 5.2 4 7159 High
OQB 90 0 5.0 4 5850 High
OQFB 90 25 6.2 4 1763 Low Note: This mix was made with 8.4 percent cement reduction. Table EQ1: Rapid Chloride Permeability Values for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregates
M ix ID Age Fly Ash Air Permeability RemarksASTM C1202
(Days) ( % ) ( % ) (Coulombs) Classification
CQB 56 0 6.6 5400 High
OQB 56 0 6.6 3019 Moderate
OQFB 56 25 5.4 2306 Moderate
CQB 90 0 6.6 4830 High
OQB 90 0 6.6 2077 Moderate
OQFB 90 25 5.4 1800 Low
Note: This mix was made with 10 percent cement reduction.
E-2
Table EL2 (a): Rapid Chloride Permeability Values of Trial Mix for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregates
MIX Age Fly Ash Air Number Average Permeability RemarksID of (Coluombs) ASTM C 1202
(Days) (%) (%) Specimens classification
CLB 56 0 5.8 4 7200 High
OLB 56 0 5.2 4 6230 High
OLFB 56 25 6.8 4 3780 Moderate
CLB 90 0 5.8 4 6980 High
OLB 90 0 5.2 4 5890 High
OLFB 90 25 6.8 4 3470 Moderate Note: This mix was made with 15 percent cement reduction. Table EL2: Rapid Chloride Permeability Values for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregates
MIX Age Fly Ash Air Number Average Permeability RemarksID of (Coluombs) ASTM C 1202
(Days) (%) (%) Specimens classification
CLB 56 0 5.4 4 7120 High
OLB 56 0 5.2 4 5879 High
OLFB 56 25 5.6 4 3410 Moderate
CLB 90 0 6.4 4 6890 High
OLB 90 0 5.2 4 5540 High
OLFB 90 25 5.6 4 3190 Moderate Note: This mix was made with 10 percent cement reduction.
E-3
Table EG3: Rapid Chloride Permeability Values for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates
Mix Age Fly Ash Air Number Avgerage Permeability RemarksID of (coulombs) ASTM C1202
(Days) (%) (%) Specimens Classification
CGB 56 0 6.2 4 7432 High
OGB 56 0 5.4 4 6230 High
OGFB 56 25 5.4 4 3905 Moderate
CGB 90 0 6.2 4 7132 High
OGB 90 0 5.4 4 5900 High
OGFB 90 25 5.4 4 3648 Moderate Note: This mix was made with 10percent cement reduction.
Appendix – F
Details of mixes done for the determination of Alkali Aggregate Reactivity
F-1
Table FQ1 (a): Observations of Length Change of Mortar bars for Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete Exposed to Alkali Solution
Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L i Temp Reading (in) Specimen (in) (in)
o F RH (a) (b) (b-a)
CQB1 70 35 0 0.01830 0.01830CQB2 70 35 0 0.01070 0.01070CQB3 70 35 0 0.06025 0.06025CQB4 70 35 0 0.06990 0.06990
Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L x L Temp Reading (in) Specimen (in) (in)
o F RH (a) (b) (b-a) %
CQB1 70 35 0 0.01875 0.01875 0.00450CQB2 70 35 0 0.01125 0.01125 0.00550CQB3 70 35 0 0.06235 0.06235 0.02100CQB4 70 35 0 0.07110 0.07110 0.01200
Mean 0.01075
CQB1 70 30 0 0.02410 0.02410 0.05800CQB2 70 30 0 0.01655 0.01655 0.05850CQB3 70 30 0 0.07000 0.07000 0.09750CQB4 70 30 0 0.07550 0.07550 0.05600
Mean 0.06750
CQB1 70 35 0 0.03280 0.03280 0.14500CQB2 70 35 0 0.02435 0.02435 0.13650CQB3 70 35 0 0.07720 0.07720 0.16950CQB4 70 35 0 0.08315 0.08315 0.13250
Mean 0.14588
CQB1 70 40 0 0.03620 0.03620 0.17900CQB2 70 40 0 0.02905 0.02905 0.18350CQB3 70 40 0 0.08215 0.08215 0.21900CQB4 70 40 0 0.08865 0.08865 0.18750
Mean 0.19225
LCR = Length Comparator ReadingGauge Length (G) = 10 inChange in length, L = ((Lx - Li ) / G ) x 100
Zero day reading
After 3 days
After 7 days
After 11 days
After 14 days
F-2
Table FQ1: Observations of Length Change of Mortar bars for Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete Exposed to Alkali Solution Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L i
Temp Reading (in) Specimen (in) (in)o F RH (a) (b) (b-a)
CQB1 70 35 0 0.00530 0.00530CQB2 70 35 0 0.02635 0.02635CQB3 70 35 0 0.04140 0.04140CQB4 70 35 0 0.06485 0.06485
Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L x L Temp Reading (in) Specimen (in) (in)
o F RH (a) (b) (b-a) %
CQB1 70 35 0 0.00825 0.00825 0.02950CQB2 70 35 0 0.02895 0.02895 0.02600CQB3 70 35 0 0.04450 0.04450 0.03100CQB4 70 35 0 0.06735 0.06735 0.02500
Mean 0.02788
CQB1 75 40 0 0.01770 0.01770 0.12400CQB2 75 40 0 0.03690 0.03690 0.10550CQB3 75 40 0 0.05395 0.05395 0.12550CQB4 75 40 0 0.07520 0.07520 0.10350
Mean 0.11463
CQB1 75 40 0 0.02387 0.02387 0.18570CQB2 75 40 0 0.04125 0.04125 0.14900CQB3 75 40 0 0.06011 0.06011 0.18710CQB4 75 40 0 0.07858 0.07858 0.13730
Mean 0.16478
CQB1 80 45 0 0.03005 0.03005 0.24750CQB2 80 45 0 0.04560 0.04560 0.19250CQB3 80 45 0 0.06630 0.06630 0.24900CQB4 80 45 0 0.08320 0.08320 0.18350
Mean 0.21813
Zero day reading
After 3 days
After 7 days
After 11 days
After 14 days
LCR = Length Comparator Reading Gauge Length (G) = 10 in Change in Gauge Length, L = ((Lx –Li)/G)x 100) Lx - Length Comparator Reading at age X
Li - Initial Length Comparator Reading
F-3
Table FL2 (a): Observations of Length Change of Mortar bars for Trial Mix Of Control Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete Exposed to Alkali
Solution Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L i
Temp Reading (in) Specimen (in) (in)o F RH (a) (b) (b-a)
Zero Day ReadingCLB1 70 35 0 0.01250 0.01250CLB2 70 35 0 0.00160 0.00160CLB3 70 35 0 0.01100 0.01100CLB4 70 35 0 0.01235 0.01235
Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L x L Temp Reading (in) Specimen (in) (in)
o F RH (a) (b) (b-a) %
CLB1 70 35 0 0.01325 0.01325 0.00750CLB2 70 35 0 0.00210 0.00210 0.00500CLB3 70 35 0 0.01225 0.01225 0.01250CLB4 70 35 0 0.01315 0.01315 0.00800
Mean 0.00825
CLB1 70 30 0 0.01650 0.01650 0.04000CLB2 70 30 0 0.00625 0.00625 0.04650CLB3 70 30 0 0.01730 0.01730 0.06300CLB4 70 30 0 0.02705 0.02705 0.14700
Mean 0.07413
CLB1 70 35 0 0.05435 0.05435 0.41850CLB2 70 35 0 0.00715 0.00715 0.05550CLB3 70 35 0 0.01695 0.01695 0.05950CLB4 70 35 0 0.02020 0.02020 0.07850
Mean 0.15300
CLB1 70 40 0 0.06465 0.06465 0.52150CLB2 70 40 0 0.00760 0.00760 0.06000CLB3 70 40 0 0.01740 0.01740 0.06400CLB4 70 40 0 0.02075 0.02075 0.08400
Mean 0.18238
After 3 days
After 7 days
After 11 days
After 14 days
LCR = Length Comparator Reading Gauge Length (G) = 10 in Change in Gauge Length, L = ((Lx –Li)/G)x 100) Lx - Length Comparator Reading at age X
Li - Initial Length Comparator Reading
F-4
Table FL2: Observations of Length Change of Mortar bars for Control Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete Exposed to Alkali Solution
Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L i Temp Reading (in) Specimen (in) (in)
o F RH (a) (b) (b-a)Zero Day Reading
CLB1 70 35 0 0.09640 0.09640CLB2 70 35 0 0.04340 0.04340CLB3 70 35 0 0.11040 0.11040CLB4 70 35 0 0.07075 0.07075
Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L x L Temp Reading (in) Specimen (in) (in)
o F RH (a) (b) (b-a) %
CLB1 65 45 0 0.09760 0.09760 0.01200CLB2 65 45 0 0.04525 0.04525 0.01850CLB3 65 45 0 0.11225 0.11225 0.01850CLB4 65 45 0 0.07325 0.07325 0.02500
Mean 0.01850
CLB1 70 30 0 0.10210 0.10210 0.05700CLB2 70 30 0 0.04970 0.04970 0.06300CLB3 70 30 0 0.11790 0.11790 0.07500CLB4 70 30 0 0.07840 0.07840 0.07650
Mean 0.06788
CLB1 70 35 0 0.10425 0.10425 0.07850CLB2 70 35 0 0.05405 0.05405 0.10650CLB3 70 35 0 0.12205 0.12205 0.11650CLB4 70 35 0 0.09015 0.09015 0.19400
Mean 0.12388
CLB1 70 40 0 0.10515 0.10515 0.08750CLB2 70 40 0 0.05225 0.05600 0.12600CLB3 70 40 0 0.12105 0.12315 0.12750CLB4 70 40 0 0.08115 0.09115 0.20400
Mean 0.13625
After 3 days
After 7 days
After 11 days
After 14 days
LCR = Length Comparator Reading Gauge Length (G) = 10 in Change in Gauge Length, L = ((Lx –Li)/G)x 100) Lx - Length Comparator Reading at age X Li - Initial Length Comparator Reading
F-5
Table FG3: Observations of Length Change of Mortar bars for Control Granite Bridge Deck Concrete Exposed to Alkali Solution
Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L i Temp Reading (in) Specimen (in) (in)
o F RH (a) (b) (b-a)
CGB1 65 45 0 0.05860 0.05860CGB2 65 45 0 0.09090 0.09090CGB3 65 45 0 0.05500 0.05500CGB4 65 45 0 0.08155 0.08155
Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L x L Temp Reading (in) Specimen (in) (in)
o F RH (a) (b) (b-a) %
CGB1 70 35 0 0.06045 0.06045 0.01850CGB2 70 35 0 0.09280 0.09280 0.01900CGB3 70 35 0 0.05690 0.05690 0.01900CGB4 70 35 0 0.08340 0.08340 0.01850
Mean 0.01875
CGB1 70 30 0 0.06330 0.06330 0.04700CGB2 70 30 0 0.09560 0.09560 0.04700CGB3 70 30 0 0.05980 0.05980 0.04800CGB4 70 30 0 0.08625 0.08625 0.04700
Mean 0.04725
CGB1 70 35 0 0.07250 0.07250 0.13900CGB2 70 35 0 0.10420 0.10420 0.13300CGB3 70 35 0 0.06845 0.06845 0.13450CGB4 70 35 0 0.09540 0.09540 0.13850
Mean 0.13625
CGB1 70 40 0 0.07615 0.07615 0.17550CGB2 70 40 0 0.10815 0.10815 0.17250CGB3 70 40 0 0.07260 0.07260 0.17600CGB4 70 40 0 0.09960 0.09960 0.18050
Mean 0.17613
After 3 days
After 7 days
After 11 days
After 14 days
LCR = Length Comparator Reading Gauge Length (G) = 10 in. Change in Length (L) = ((Lx – Li) / G) x 100 Lx - Length Comparator Reading at Age X Li - Initial Length Comparator Reading
F-6
Table FQ4 (a): Observations of Length Change of Mortar bars for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash Exposed to Alkali Solution
Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L i Temp Reading (in) Specimen (in) (in)
o F RH (a) (b) (b-a)
OQB1 70 35 0 0.09490 0.09490OQB2 70 35 0 0.10600 0.10600OQB3 70 35 0 0.01345 0.01345OQB4 70 35 0 0.00785 0.00785
Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L x L Temp Reading (in) Specimen (in) (in)
o F RH (a) (b) (b-a) (%)
OQB1 70 35 0 0.09585 0.09585 0.00950OQB2 70 35 0 0.10700 0.10700 0.01000OQB3 70 35 0 0.01440 0.01440 0.00950OQB4 70 35 0 0.00875 0.00875 0.00900
Mean 0.00950
OQB1 70 30 0 0.10055 0.10055 0.05650OQB2 70 30 0 0.11260 0.11260 0.06600OQB3 70 30 0 0.01835 0.01835 0.04900OQB4 70 30 0 0.01365 0.01365 0.05800
Mean 0.05738
OQB1 70 35 0 0.10800 0.10700 0.12100OQB2 70 35 0 0.11900 0.11800 0.12000OQB3 70 35 0 0.02630 0.02530 0.11850OQB4 70 35 0 0.02125 0.02025 0.12400
Mean 0.12088
OQB1 70 40 0 0.11285 0.10985 0.14950OQB2 70 40 0 0.12400 0.12100 0.15000OQB3 70 40 0 0.03125 0.02825 0.14800OQB4 70 40 0 0.02600 0.02300 0.15150
Mean 0.14975
LCR = Length Comparator ReadingGauge Length (G) = 10 inChange in length, L = ((Lx - Li ) / G ) x 100
After 7 days
After 11 days
After 14 days
Zero day reading
After 3 days
F-7
Table FQ4: Observations of Length Change of Mortar bars for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash Exposed to Alkali Solution Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L i
Temp Reading (in) Specimen (in) (in)o F RH (a) (b) (b-a)
OQB1 80 40 0 -0.05310 -0.05310OQB2 80 40 0 -0.01165 -0.01165OQB3 80 40 0 -0.08720 -0.08720OQB4 80 40 0 -0.02040 -0.02040
Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L x L Temp Reading (in) Specimen (in) (in)
o F RH (a) (b) (b-a) (%)
OQB1 70 35 0 -0.05075 -0.05075 0.02350OQB2 70 35 0 -0.00975 -0.00975 0.01900OQB3 70 35 0 -0.08525 -0.08525 0.01950OQB4 70 35 0 -0.01745 -0.01745 0.02950
Mean 0.02288
OQB1 75 40 0 -0.04320 -0.04320 0.09900OQB2 75 40 0 -0.00150 -0.00150 0.10150OQB3 75 40 0 -0.07670 -0.07670 0.10500OQB4 75 40 0 -0.00860 -0.00860 0.11800
Mean 0.10588
OQB1 75 40 0 -0.04005 -0.04005 0.13050OQB2 75 40 0 0.00290 0.00290 0.14550OQB3 75 40 0 -0.07320 -0.07320 0.14000OQB4 75 40 0 -0.00545 -0.00545 0.14950
Mean 0.14138
OQB1 80 45 0 -0.03685 -0.03685 0.16250OQB2 80 45 0 0.00985 0.00985 0.21500OQB3 80 45 0 -0.06975 -0.06975 0.17450OQB4 80 45 0 -0.00200 -0.00200 0.18400
Mean 0.18400
After 7 days
After 11 days
After 14 days
Zero day reading
After 3 days
LCR = Length Comparator Reading Gauge Length (G) = 10 in Change in Gauge Length, L = ((Lx –Li)/G)x 100) Lx - Length Comparator Reading at age X
Li - Initial Length Comparator Reading
F-8
Table FL5 (a): Observations of Length Change of Mortar bars for Trial Mix of Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash Exposed to Alkali Solution
Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L i Temp Reading (in) Specimen (in) (in)o F RH (a) (b) (b-a)
Zero Day ReadingOLB1 70 35 0 0.00375 0.00375OLB2 70 35 0 0.05385 0.05385OLB3 70 35 0 0.00730 0.00730OLB4 70 35 0 0.06345 0.06345
Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L x L Temp Reading (in) Specimen (in) (in)
o F RH (a) (b) (b-a) %
OLB1 70 35 0 0.00465 0.00465 0.00900OLB2 70 35 0 0.05490 0.05490 0.01050OLB3 70 35 0 0.00825 0.00825 0.00950OLB4 70 35 0 0.06435 0.06435 0.00900
Mean 0.00950
OLB1 70 30 0 0.00885 0.00885 0.05100OLB2 70 30 0 0.05530 0.05530 0.01450OLB3 70 30 0 0.01390 0.01390 0.06600OGB4 70 30 0 0.06855 0.06855 0.05100
Mean 0.04563
OLB1 70 35 0 0.01645 0.01645 0.12700OLB2 70 35 0 0.05605 0.05605 0.02200OLB3 70 35 0 0.02200 0.02200 0.14700OLB4 70 35 0 0.07565 0.07565 0.12200
Mean 0.10450
OLB1 70 40 0 0.02125 0.02125 0.17500OLB2 70 40 0 0.05650 0.05650 0.02650OLB3 70 40 0 0.02710 0.02710 0.19800OLB4 70 40 0 0.08050 0.08050 0.17050
Mean 0.14250
After 3 days
After 7 days
After 11 days
After 14 days
LCR = Length Comparator Reading Gauge Length (G) = 10 in Change in Gauge Length, L = ((Lx –Li)/G)x 100) Lx - Length Comparator Reading at age X
Li - Initial Length Comparator Reading
F-9
Table FL5: Observations of Length Change of Mortar bars for Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash Exposed to Alkali Solution Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L i
Temp Reading (in) Specimen (in) (in)o F RH (a) (b) (b-a)
Zero Day ReadingOLB1 70 35 0 0.09230 0.09230OLB2 70 35 0 0.09060 0.09060OLB3 70 35 0 0.05155 0.05155OLB4 70 35 0 0.00155 0.00155
Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L x L Temp Reading (in) Specimen (in) (in)
o F RH (a) (b) (b-a) %
OLB1 65 45 0 0.09345 0.09345 0.01150OLB2 65 45 0 0.09335 0.09335 0.02750OLB3 65 45 0 0.05260 0.05260 0.01050OLB4 65 45 0 0.00175 0.00175 0.00200
Mean 0.01288
OLB1 70 30 0 0.09840 0.09840 0.06100OLB2 70 30 0 0.09860 0.09860 0.08000OLB3 70 30 0 0.05620 0.05620 0.04650OGB4 70 30 0 0.00495 0.00495 0.03400
Mean 0.05538
OLB1 70 35 0 0.10015 0.10015 0.07850OLB2 70 35 0 0.10905 0.10905 0.18450OLB3 70 35 0 0.05825 0.05825 0.06700OLB4 70 35 0 0.00980 0.00980 0.08250
Mean 0.10313
OLB1 70 40 0 0.10120 0.10220 0.09900OLB2 70 40 0 0.10125 0.11115 0.20550OLB3 70 40 0 0.05915 0.05915 0.07600OLB4 70 40 0 0.00735 0.01010 0.08550
Mean 0.11650
After 3 days
After 7 days
After 11 days
After 14 days
LCR = Length Comparator Reading Gauge Length (G) = 10 in Change in Gauge Length, L = ((Lx –Li)/G)x 100) Lx - Length Comparator Reading at age X
Li - Initial Length Comparator Reading
F-10
Table FG6: Observations of Length Change of Mortar bars for Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash Exposed to Alkali Solution
Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L i Temp Reading (in) Specimen (in) (in)
o F RH (a) (b) (b-a)
OGB1 65 45 0 0.09275 0.09275OGB2 65 45 0 0.07945 0.07945OGB3 65 45 0 0.08845 0.08845OGB4 65 45 0 0.06415 0.06415
Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L x L Temp Reading (in) Specimen (in) (in)
o F RH (a) (b) (b-a) %
OGB1 70 35 0 0.09435 0.09435 0.01600OGB2 70 35 0 0.08130 0.08130 0.01850OGB3 70 35 0 0.09000 0.09000 0.01550OGB4 70 35 0 0.06545 0.06545 0.01300
Mean 0.01575
OGB1 70 30 0 0.09625 0.09625 0.03500OGB2 70 30 0 0.08330 0.08330 0.03850OGB3 70 30 0 0.09255 0.09255 0.04100OGB4 70 30 0 0.06780 0.06780 0.03650
Mean 0.03775
OGB1 70 35 0 0.10280 0.10280 0.10050OGB2 70 35 0 0.08985 0.08985 0.10400OGB3 70 35 0 0.09895 0.09895 0.10500OGB4 70 35 0 0.07435 0.07435 0.10200
Mean 0.10288
OGB1 70 40 0 0.10660 0.10660 0.13850OGB2 70 40 0 0.09315 0.09315 0.13700OGB3 70 40 0 0.10145 0.10145 0.13000OGB4 70 40 0 0.07740 0.07740 0.13250
Mean 0.13450
After 3 days
After 7 days
After 11 days
After 14 days
LCR = Length Comparator Reading Gauge Length (G) = 10 in. Change in Length (L) = ((Lx – Li) / G) x 100 Lx - Length Comparator Reading at Age X Li - Initial Length Comparator Reading
F-11
Table FQ7 (a): Observations of Length Change of Mortar bars for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash Exposed to Alkali
Solution
Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L i Temp Reading (in) Specimen (in) (in)
o F RH (a) (b) (b-a)
OQFB1 70 35 0 0.02535 0.02535OQFB2 70 35 0 0.09450 0.09450OQFB3 70 35 0 0.09045 0.09045OQFB4 70 35 0 0.04170 0.04170
Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L x L Temp Reading (in) Specimen (in) (in)
o F RH (a) (b) (b-a) (%)
OQFB1 70 35 0 0.02635 0.02635 0.01000OQFB2 70 35 0 0.09460 0.09460 0.00100OQFB3 70 35 0 0.09120 0.09120 0.00750OQFB4 70 35 0 0.04280 0.04280 0.01100
Mean 0.00737
OQFB1 70 30 0 0.02750 0.02750 0.02150OQFB2 70 30 0 0.09470 0.09470 0.00200OQFB3 70 30 0 0.09190 0.09190 0.01450OQFB4 70 30 0 0.04420 0.04420 0.02500
Mean 0.01575
OQFB1 70 40 0 0.02800 0.02800 0.02650OQFB2 70 40 0 0.09580 0.09580 0.01300OQFB3 70 40 0 0.09210 0.09210 0.01650OQFB4 70 40 0 0.04535 0.04535 0.03650
Mean 0.02313
OQFB1 70 30 0 0.02850 0.02850 0.03150OQFB2 70 30 0 0.09690 0.09690 0.02400OQFB3 70 30 0 0.09220 0.09220 0.01750OQFB4 70 30 0 0.04605 0.04605 0.04350
Mean 0.02913
LCR = Length Comparator ReadingGauge Length (G) = 10 inChange in length, L = ((Lx - Li ) / G ) x 100
Zero day reading
After 3 days
After 7 days
After 11 days
After 14 days
F-12
Table FQ7: Observations of Length Change of Mortar bars for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash Exposed to Alkali
Solution Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L i
Temp Reading (in) Specimen (in) (in)o F RH (a) (b) (b-a)
OQFB1 70 35 0 0.09100 0.09100OQFB2 70 35 0 0.09985 0.09985OQFB3 70 35 0 -0.02800 -0.02800OQFB4 70 35 0 -0.03750 -0.03750
Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L x L Temp Reading (in) Specimen (in) (in)
o F RH (a) (b) (b-a) (%)
OQFB1 70 35 0 0.09155 0.09155 0.00550OQFB2 70 35 0 0.10025 0.10025 0.00400OQFB3 70 35 0 -0.02705 -0.02705 0.00950OQFB4 70 35 0 -0.03690 -0.03690 0.00600
Mean 0.00625
OQFB1 75 40 0 0.09230 0.09230 0.01300OQFB2 75 40 0 0.10120 0.10120 0.01350OQFB3 75 40 0 -0.02665 -0.02665 0.01350OQFB4 75 40 0 -0.03655 -0.03655 0.00950
Mean 0.01238
OQFB1 75 40 0 0.09490 0.09490 0.03900OQFB2 75 40 0 0.10190 0.10190 0.02050OQFB3 75 40 0 -0.02530 -0.02530 0.02700OQFB4 75 40 0 -0.03490 -0.03490 0.02600
Mean 0.02813
OQFB1 80 45 0 0.09515 0.09515 0.04150OQFB2 80 45 0 0.10305 0.10305 0.03200OQFB3 80 45 0 -0.02415 -0.02415 0.03850OQFB4 80 45 0 -0.03360 -0.03360 0.03900
Mean 0.03775
Zero day reading
After 3 days
After 7 days
After 11 days
After 14 days
LCR = Length Comparator Reading Gauge Length (G) = 10 in Change in Gauge Length, L = ((Lx –Li)/G)x 100) Lx - Length Comparator Reading at age X Li - Initial Length Comparator Reading
F-13
Table FL8 (a): Observations of Length Change of Mortar bars for Trial Mix of Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash Exposed to Alkali Solution Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L i
Temp Reading (in) Specimen (in) (in)o F RH (a) (b) (b-a)
Zero Day ReadingOLFB1 70 35 0 0.05530 0.05530OLFB2 70 35 0 0.01535 0.01535OLFB3 70 35 0 0.03505 0.03505OLFB4 70 35 0 0.05825 0.05825
Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L x L Temp Reading (in) Specimen (in) (in)
o F RH (a) (b) (b-a) %
OLFB1 70 35 0 0.05625 0.05625 0.00950OLFB2 70 35 0 0.01630 0.01630 0.00950OLFB3 70 35 0 0.03615 0.03615 0.01100OLFB4 70 35 0 0.05960 0.05960 0.01350
Mean 0.01088
OLFB1 70 30 0 0.05740 0.05740 0.02100OLFB2 70 30 0 0.01730 0.01730 0.01950OLFB3 70 30 0 0.03735 0.03735 0.02300OLFB4 70 30 0 0.06050 0.06050 0.02250
Mean 0.02150
OLFB1 70 40 0 0.05775 0.05775 0.02450OLFB2 70 40 0 0.01845 0.01845 0.03100OLFB3 70 40 0 0.03825 0.03825 0.03200OLFB4 70 40 0 0.06150 0.06150 0.03250
Mean 0.03000
OLFB1 70 30 0 0.05890 0.05890 0.03600OLFB2 70 30 0 0.01895 0.01895 0.03600OLFB3 70 30 0 0.03860 0.03860 0.03550OLFB4 70 30 0 0.06240 0.06240 0.04150
Mean 0.03725
After 3 days
After 7 days
After 11 days
After 14 days
LCR = Length Comparator Reading Gauge Length (G) = 10 in Change in Gauge Length, L = ((Lx –Li)/G)x 100) Lx - Length Comparator Reading at age X
Li - Initial Length Comparator Reading
F-14
Table FL8: Observations of Length Change of Mortar bars for Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash Exposed to Alkali Solution
Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L i Temp Reading (in) Specimen (in) (in)
o F RH (a) (b) (b-a)Zero Day Reading
OLFB1 70 35 0 0.10675 0.10675OLFB2 70 35 0 0.08415 0.08415OLFB3 70 35 0 0.09435 0.09435OLFB4 70 35 0 0.07950 0.07950
Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L x L Temp Reading (in) Specimen (in) (in)
o F RH (a) (b) (b-a) %
OLFB1 65 45 0 0.10875 0.10875 0.02000OLFB2 65 45 0 0.08595 0.08595 0.01800OLFB3 65 45 0 0.09600 0.09600 0.01650OLFB4 65 45 0 0.08010 0.08010 0.00600
Mean 0.01513
OLFB1 70 30 0 0.10935 0.10935 0.02600OLFB2 70 30 0 0.08620 0.08620 0.02050OLFB3 70 30 0 0.09650 0.09650 0.02150OLFB4 70 30 0 0.08100 0.08100 0.01500
Mean 0.02075
OLFB1 70 35 0 0.11025 0.11025 0.03500OLFB2 70 35 0 0.08820 0.08820 0.04050OLFB3 70 35 0 0.10765 0.10765 0.13300OLFB4 70 35 0 0.08235 0.08235 0.02850
Mean 0.05925
OLFB1 70 40 0 0.11130 0.11130 0.04550OLFB2 70 40 0 0.08965 0.08965 0.05500OLFB3 70 40 0 0.10855 0.10855 0.14200OLFB4 70 40 0 0.08315 0.08315 0.03650
Mean 0.06975
After 3 days
After 7 days
After 11 days
After 14 days
LCR = Length Comparator Reading Gauge Length (G) = 10 in Change in Gauge Length, L = ((Lx –Li)/G)x 100) Lx - Length Comparator Reading at age X
Li - Initial Length Comparator Reading
F-15
Table FG9: Observations of Length Change of Mortar bars for Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash Exposed to Alkali Solution
Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L i Temp Reading (in) Specimen (in) (in)
o F RH (a) (b) (b-a)
OGFB1 70 45 0 0.06305 0.06305OGFB2 70 45 0 0.07410 0.07410OGFB3 70 45 0 0.04900 0.04900OGFB4 70 45 0 0.06245 0.06245
Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L x L Temp Reading (in) Specimen (in) (in)
o F RH (a) (b) (b-a) %
OGFB1 70 35 0 0.06415 0.06415 0.01100OGFB2 70 35 0 0.07520 0.07520 0.01100OGFB3 70 35 0 0.05010 0.05010 0.01100OGFB4 70 35 0 0.06355 0.06355 0.01100
Mean 0.01100
OGFB1 65 35 0 0.06635 0.06635 0.03300OGFB2 65 35 0 0.07690 0.07690 0.02800OGFB3 65 35 0 0.05200 0.05200 0.03000OGFB4 65 35 0 0.06585 0.06585 0.03400
Mean 0.03125
OGFB1 70 30 0 0.06745 0.06745 0.04400OGFB2 70 30 0 0.07800 0.07800 0.03900OGFB3 70 30 0 0.05315 0.05315 0.04150OGFB4 70 30 0 0.06605 0.06605 0.03600
Mean 0.04013
OGFB1 70 40 0 0.06800 0.06800 0.04950OGFB2 70 40 0 0.07860 0.07860 0.04500OGFB3 70 40 0 0.05385 0.05385 0.04850OGFB4 70 40 0 0.06665 0.06665 0.04200
Mean 0.04625
After 3 days
After 7 days
After 11 days
After 14 days
LCR = Length Comparator Reading Gauge Length (G) = 10 in. Change in Length (L) = ((Lx – Li) / G) x 100 Lx - Length Comparator Reading at Age X Li - Initial Length Comparator Reading
Appendix – G
Details of mixes done for the determination of Drying Shrinkage
Table GQ1 (a): Drying Shrinkage Deformations for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate
Time(Days)
No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average0 -10 -25 -15 -17 -25 -5 -25 -18 -10 -25 -30 -22
0.166 0 -15 0 -5 15 20 0 12 -5 -20 -25 -170.333 5 -5 15 5 35 50 25 37 5 -15 -15 -8
0.5 25 25 35 28 45 70 -55 20 10 -15 -15 -70.667 45 75 55 58 55 90 60 68 10 -10 -15 -50.833 55 80 60 65 75 110 85 90 15 -10 -15 -3
1 60 80 65 68 90 115 95 100 20 -10 -15 -21.333 65 85 75 75 130 120 100 117 20 -10 -10 01.666 70 85 80 78 135 120 105 120 25 0 0 8
2 105 105 90 100 145 135 120 133 25 10 15 172.333 120 105 95 107 150 140 125 138 30 20 23 242.666 125 110 100 112 150 140 130 140 35 35 30 33
3 135 115 105 118 155 150 135 147 40 50 35 424 140 125 120 128 155 155 135 148 60 65 60 625 155 140 135 143 165 160 145 157 80 80 80 806 185 180 190 185 175 180 175 177 90 90 90 907 220 225 235 227 185 220 200 202 120 130 135 128
14 265 285 275 275 235 250 225 237 185 180 190 18521 305 320 310 312 280 280 265 275 235 230 230 23228 350 355 350 352 315 310 295 307 270 270 275 27260 410 405 395 403 350 345 335 343 300 300 310 30390 465 450 445 453 385 380 375 380 330 335 345 337
Note: All deformation values are to be multiplied by 10-6 to get the unit deformations in in./in.
Specimen Specimen Specimen
Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deckwith Fly Ash
G-1
Table GQ1: Drying Shrinkage Deformations for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate
Time(Days)
No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average0 -10 -25 -15 -17 -10 -10 -20 -13 -20 -10 -25 -18
0.166 0 -15 0 -5 0 0 -10 -3 -10 -5 -20 -120.333 5 -5 15 5 5 20 0 8 0 0 -15 -5
0.5 25 25 35 28 15 30 20 22 5 5 -10 00.667 40 75 55 57 25 50 40 38 10 10 -5 50.833 50 80 60 63 35 80 60 58 15 15 0 10
1 55 80 65 67 75 90 80 82 20 20 5 151.333 75 85 75 78 85 100 100 95 25 25 10 201.666 95 85 80 87 95 120 105 107 30 30 15 25
2 105 105 90 100 115 125 110 117 35 30 20 282.333 125 105 95 108 120 130 115 122 40 35 25 332.666 130 110 100 113 125 135 120 127 40 35 45 40
3 135 115 105 118 130 140 125 132 45 40 50 454 145 125 120 130 135 150 130 138 50 50 55 525 150 140 135 142 140 160 140 147 60 60 65 626 175 180 190 182 150 170 160 160 80 70 85 787 200 225 235 220 185 190 180 185 120 100 125 115
14 230 285 275 263 210 220 200 210 160 170 175 16821 300 320 310 310 235 250 230 238 205 200 225 21028 320 355 350 342 285 280 260 275 260 250 255 25560 400 405 395 400 345 340 350 345 300 290 295 29590 445 450 445 447 380 375 380 378 320 340 325 328
Note: All deformation values are to be multiplied by 10-6 to get the unit deformations in in./in.
Specimen Specimen Specimen
Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deckwith Fly Ash
G-2
Table GL2 (a): Drying Shrinkage Deformations of Trial Mix for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate
Time(Days)
No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average0 -10 -25 -25 -20 -25 -5 -25 -18 -10 -20 -25 -18
0.166 0 -15 15 0 15 20 0 12 -5 -15 -20 -130.333 5 -5 35 12 35 50 25 37 0 -10 -15 -80.5 25 25 45 32 45 70 55 57 5 -5 -10 -3
0.667 45 75 55 58 55 90 60 68 10 0 -5 20.833 55 80 75 70 75 110 80 88 15 5 0 7
1 60 85 90 78 90 115 90 98 20 10 5 121.333 75 90 130 98 120 115 95 110 25 10 10 151.666 100 95 135 110 140 115 105 120 30 15 15 20
2 105 100 145 117 145 135 115 132 35 20 15 232.333 115 105 150 123 150 140 125 138 35 25 20 272.666 125 110 150 128 150 145 130 142 40 30 25 32
3 135 115 155 135 155 150 130 145 45 30 30 354 145 125 155 142 160 165 140 155 55 50 35 475 150 135 165 150 165 180 140 162 75 75 50 676 175 175 175 175 170 180 170 173 85 80 70 787 215 205 185 202 180 200 200 193 115 130 100 115
14 255 265 235 252 225 240 225 230 165 170 180 17221 300 315 280 298 275 270 255 267 225 215 220 22028 345 345 315 335 310 300 285 298 265 245 270 26060 400 395 350 382 340 335 325 333 295 295 300 297
Note: All deformation values are to be multiplied by 10-6 to get the unit deformations in in./in.
with Fly AshSpecimen Specimen Specimen
Control Limestone Bridge Deck Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck
G-3
Table GL2: Drying Shrinkage Deformations for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate
Time(Days)
No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average0 -5 -15 -10 -10 -20 -20 0 -13 -5 -15 -25 -15
0.166 0 -10 0 -3 10 10 15 12 -5 -15 -25 -150.333 5 0 10 5 30 30 40 33 0 -10 -20 -100.5 20 20 30 23 40 40 60 47 5 -10 -15 -7
0.667 40 70 50 53 50 50 80 60 5 -10 -15 -70.833 45 70 55 57 65 65 100 77 10 -5 -10 -2
1 50 75 55 60 80 80 110 90 15 -5 -5 21.333 60 80 70 70 125 125 110 120 15 0 -5 31.666 65 80 75 73 130 130 115 125 20 5 0 8
2 95 95 80 90 135 135 125 132 25 5 10 132.333 110 100 80 97 140 140 130 137 25 10 20 182.666 120 100 90 103 145 145 135 142 30 30 25 28
3 125 105 100 110 145 145 140 143 30 40 30 334 130 120 110 120 150 150 150 150 50 60 50 535 150 130 130 137 160 160 150 157 75 70 70 726 180 170 180 177 170 170 170 170 80 85 80 827 210 220 230 220 180 180 210 190 110 120 130 120
14 260 275 270 268 225 225 240 230 180 170 180 17721 300 310 300 303 270 270 270 270 230 220 220 22328 340 350 340 343 310 310 300 307 260 265 270 26560 400 400 380 393 340 340 330 337 290 290 300 293
Note: All deformation values are to be multiplied by 10-6 to get the unit deformations in in./in.
with Fly AshSpecimen Specimen Specimen
Control Limestone Bridge Deck Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck
G-4
Table GG3: Drying Shrinkage Deformations for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate
Time(Days) without Fly Ash
No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average0 -10 -25 -15 -17 -25 -5 -20 -17 -10 -25 -35 -23
0.166 0 -15 0 -5 15 20 0 12 -5 -20 -30 -180.333 5 -5 15 5 35 50 20 35 5 -15 -25 -120.5 25 25 30 27 45 70 50 55 10 -15 -20 -8
0.667 45 75 50 57 55 90 55 67 10 -10 -15 -50.833 55 80 60 65 75 100 80 85 15 -10 -15 -3
1 60 85 70 72 90 110 90 97 20 -10 -10 01.333 65 90 80 78 130 115 100 115 20 -10 -10 01.666 70 95 85 83 135 120 105 120 25 -10 -10 2
2 105 100 90 98 140 130 110 127 25 0 0 82.333 110 105 95 103 145 135 115 132 30 10 10 172.666 125 110 100 112 150 140 120 137 35 30 25 30
3 135 115 105 118 155 145 130 143 40 50 30 404 145 125 115 128 160 150 135 148 60 65 45 575 155 140 130 142 165 155 140 153 80 75 75 776 195 180 180 185 170 170 170 170 90 80 85 857 210 225 220 218 185 215 200 200 120 125 130 12514 270 285 260 272 225 245 215 228 175 170 180 17521 300 315 300 305 280 275 255 270 225 220 220 22228 340 345 340 342 310 305 285 300 255 260 270 26260 400 395 395 397 340 340 325 335 290 290 300 293
with Fly AshSpecimen Specimen Specimen
Control Granite Bridge Deck Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Optimum Granite Bridge Deck
G-5
H-1
Appendix – H
Details of mixes done for the determination of Creep and Shrinkage
H-1
Table HQ1 (a): Unit Creep Strains and Unit Shrinkage for Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete
Timeunder Total Unit Unit Specific
Sustained No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average Creep Strain CreepLoad (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in./psi)
in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ]0.00 170 150 130 150 0 0 0 0 0 0.000.17 230 250 280 253 0 0 0 0 103 0.130.33 305 315 315 312 0 0 0 0 162 0.200.50 345 340 365 350 0 0 0 0 200 0.250.67 400 405 375 393 0 5 10 5 238 0.280.83 405 410 435 417 10 15 10 11 256 0.321.00 420 435 460 438 20 20 20 20 268 0.341.33 445 465 480 463 20 20 25 23 290 0.361.67 475 485 500 487 20 25 30 25 312 0.392.00 510 500 525 512 30 35 40 35 327 0.413.00 540 535 550 542 45 50 50 49 343 0.434.00 565 560 580 568 60 60 65 62 356 0.455.00 570 590 620 598 70 75 70 72 376 0.476.00 590 650 640 627 85 90 100 91 386 0.4814.00 680 675 680 678 115 120 130 123 405 0.5121.00 745 735 715 732 170 170 175 171 411 0.5128.00 820 825 830 825 235 250 260 249 426 0.5360.00 890 895 905 897 270 300 290 288 459 0.58
Strains for control specimensShrinkage
Note: Values in Columns [2] through [11] are to be multiplied by 10-6 to get the strains in in./in.
Strains for specimens subjected to sustained load
H-2
Table HQ1: Unit Creep Strains and Unit Shrinkage for Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete
T im eunder Total Unit Unit Specific
Sustained No. 1 No. 2 N o. 3 Average No. 1 N o. 2 No. 3 Average Creep Strain CreepLoad (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in./psi)
in D ays[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ]0.00 150 160 170 160 0 0 0 0 0 0.000.17 240 280 290 270 0 0 0 0 110 0.140.33 300 320 335 318 0 0 0 0 158 0.200.50 345 395 370 370 0 0 0 0 210 0.260.67 400 420 405 408 0 5 10 5 243 0.300.83 405 445 415 422 5 15 15 12 250 0.311.00 440 470 440 450 15 25 25 22 268 0.341.33 470 485 455 470 15 25 30 23 287 0.361.67 500 495 495 497 20 30 30 27 310 0.392.00 515 525 515 518 35 35 35 35 323 0.403.00 540 545 565 550 45 50 50 48 342 0.434.00 565 585 580 577 55 65 60 60 357 0.455.00 605 605 600 603 65 70 70 68 375 0.476.00 640 620 635 632 85 95 90 90 382 0.48
14.00 690 675 685 683 120 115 120 118 405 0.5121.00 735 740 745 740 165 165 170 167 413 0.5228.00 810 850 830 830 220 260 240 240 430 0.5460.00 890 915 910 905 280 280 280 280 465 0.58
Strains for control specim ensShrinkage
N ote: Values in Colum ns [2] through [11] are to be m ultip lied by 10-6 to get the stra ins in in./in.
S tra ins for specim ens subjected to sustained load
H-3
Table HL2: Unit Creep Strains and Unit Shrinkage for Control Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete
Timeunder Total Unit Unit Specific
Sustained No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average Creep Strain CreepLoad (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in./psi)
in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ]0.00 160 155 165 160 0 0 0 0 0 0.000.17 265 265 265 265 0 0 0 0 105 0.130.33 330 335 355 340 0 0 0 0 180 0.230.50 370 365 375 370 0 0 0 0 210 0.260.67 425 430 430 428 10 10 0 7 262 0.330.83 425 435 450 437 15 10 10 12 265 0.331.00 440 455 470 455 20 20 20 20 275 0.351.33 480 485 500 488 25 25 20 23 305 0.381.67 495 500 520 505 30 30 25 28 317 0.402.00 510 525 530 522 40 40 40 40 322 0.403.00 550 555 555 553 50 50 55 52 342 0.434.00 570 575 585 577 65 65 60 63 353 0.445.00 600 595 600 598 80 70 70 73 365 0.466.00 655 660 665 660 100 100 105 102 398 0.5214.00 690 710 725 708 125 130 125 127 422 0.5321.00 750 760 770 760 175 175 165 172 428 0.5428.00 850 865 880 865 265 260 270 265 440 0.5560.00 925 915 940 927 315 290 300 302 465 0.59
Strains for control specimensShrinkage
Note: Values in Columns [2] through [11] are to be multiplied by 10-6 to get the strains in in./in.
Strains for specimens subjected to sustained load
H-4
Table HG3: Unit Creep Strains and Unit Shrinkage for Control Granite Bridge Deck Concrete
Timeunder Total Unit Unit Specific
Sustained No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average Creep Strain CreepLoad (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in./psi)
in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ]0.00 150 150 150 150 0 0 0 0 0 0.000.17 250 260 255 255 0 0 0 0 105 0.130.33 320 315 315 317 0 0 0 0 167 0.210.50 350 355 365 357 0 0 0 0 207 0.260.67 400 410 410 407 10 5 0 5 252 0.310.83 425 420 430 425 15 10 10 12 263 0.331.00 440 450 450 447 20 20 20 20 277 0.341.33 460 465 470 465 25 25 20 23 292 0.361.67 495 490 500 495 30 25 25 27 318 0.392.00 510 520 520 517 35 40 40 38 328 0.413.00 550 540 545 545 50 50 50 50 345 0.434.00 570 575 575 573 60 65 60 62 362 0.455.00 600 595 595 597 80 65 75 73 373 0.466.00 630 650 650 643 100 100 105 102 392 0.4814.00 690 700 710 700 125 130 125 127 423 0.5221.00 750 760 740 750 175 175 165 172 428 0.5328.00 850 850 840 847 250 260 270 260 437 0.5460.00 930 920 910 920 280 290 300 290 480 0.59
Strains for control specimensShrinkage
Note: Values in Columns [2] through [11] are to be multiplied by 10-6 to get the strains in in./in.
Strains for specimens subjected to sustained load
H-5
Table HQ4 (a): Unit Creep Strains and Unit Shrinkage for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with out Fly Ash
Timeunder Total Unit Unit Specific
Sustained No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average Creep Strain CreepLoad (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in./psi)
in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ]0.00 150 160 170 160 0 0 0 0 0 0.000.17 200 225 220 215 0 0 0 0 55 0.070.33 260 265 260 262 0 0 0 0 102 0.130.50 290 310 305 302 0 0 0 0 142 0.180.67 330 360 345 345 0 0 0 0 185 0.230.83 360 365 370 365 5 5 5 5 200 0.251.00 380 400 385 388 5 5 5 5 223 0.281.33 400 420 425 415 5 5 5 5 250 0.311.67 440 440 445 442 5 10 10 8 274 0.342.00 450 470 470 463 10 15 20 15 288 0.363.00 480 490 495 488 20 25 30 25 303 0.384.00 500 510 510 507 30 50 40 40 307 0.385.00 515 530 535 527 40 50 45 45 322 0.406.00 530 540 550 540 50 60 70 60 320 0.40
14.00 560 560 575 565 70 110 90 90 315 0.4221.00 610 620 640 623 130 135 140 135 328 0.4428.00 680 685 690 685 175 190 200 188 337 0.4560.00 745 755 760 753 215 230 230 225 368 0.46
Note: Values in Columns [2] through [11] are to be multiplied by 10-6 to get the strains in in./in.
Strains for control specimensShrinkage
Strains for specimens subjected to sustained load
H-6
Table HQ4 : Unit Creep Strains and Unit Shrinkage for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with out Fly Ash
Timeunder Total Unit Unit Specific
Sustained No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average Creep Strain CreepLoad (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in./psi)
in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ]
0.00 170 175 165 170 0 0 0 0 0 0.000.17 215 225 230 223 0 0 0 0 53 0.070.33 270 270 275 272 0 0 0 0 102 0.130.50 310 300 300 303 0 0 0 0 133 0.170.67 350 345 360 352 0 0 0 0 182 0.230.83 365 370 375 370 5 5 5 5 195 0.241.00 385 390 385 387 5 5 5 5 212 0.261.33 415 425 420 420 5 5 5 5 245 0.311.67 445 440 455 447 5 10 5 7 270 0.342.00 465 470 465 467 15 20 10 15 282 0.353.00 485 500 500 495 20 20 20 20 305 0.384.00 505 515 515 512 30 35 35 33 308 0.395.00 525 535 540 533 40 45 40 42 322 0.406.00 540 545 545 543 50 50 45 48 325 0.41
14.00 565 565 580 570 70 75 75 73 327 0.4121.00 630 630 630 630 120 140 130 130 330 0.4128.00 700 700 700 700 170 175 195 180 350 0.4460.00 760 730 790 760 215 210 210 212 378 0.47
Note: Values in Columns [2] through [11] are to be multiplied by 10-6 to get the strains in in./in.
Strains for control specimensShrinkage
Strains for specimens subjected to sustained load
H-7
Table HL5: Unit Creep Strains and Unit Shrinkage for Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash
Timeunder Total Unit Unit Specific
Sustained No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average Creep Strain CreepLoad (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in./psi)
in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ]0.00 155 165 175 165 0 0 0 0 0 0.000.17 215 220 230 222 0 0 0 0 57 0.070.33 265 270 265 267 0 0 0 0 102 0.130.50 290 320 330 313 0 0 0 0 148 0.180.67 345 360 360 355 5 0 10 5 185 0.230.83 365 370 380 372 5 0 10 5 202 0.251.00 395 400 395 397 5 0 10 5 227 0.291.33 420 425 430 425 5 0 10 5 255 0.321.67 450 460 465 458 5 10 15 10 283 0.362.00 470 480 480 477 5 15 15 12 300 0.383.00 490 490 510 497 15 25 35 25 307 0.394.00 515 520 525 520 40 40 45 42 313 0.385.00 530 530 540 533 45 50 55 50 318 0.406.00 550 550 560 553 60 65 75 67 322 0.4014.00 585 590 600 592 80 100 110 97 330 0.3921.00 630 640 640 637 120 140 140 133 338 0.4328.00 700 700 710 703 180 190 205 192 347 0.4360.00 770 780 780 777 225 240 235 233 378 0.48
Strains for control specimensShrinkage
Note: Values in Columns [2] through [11] are to be multiplied by 10-6 to get the strains in in./in.
Strains for specimens subjected to sustained load
H-8
Table HG6: Unit Creep Strains and Unit Shrinkage for Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash
Timeunder Total Unit Unit Specific
Sustained No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average Creep Strain CreepLoad (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in./psi)
in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ]0.00 150 155 155 153 0 0 0 0 0 0.000.17 215 220 220 218 0 0 0 0 65 0.080.33 270 265 260 265 0 0 0 0 112 0.140.50 300 310 310 307 0 0 0 0 153 0.190.67 350 360 340 350 0 5 10 5 192 0.240.83 365 365 370 367 5 0 10 5 208 0.261.00 400 390 390 393 5 5 10 7 233 0.291.33 425 420 420 422 5 5 10 7 262 0.321.67 460 450 465 458 10 10 10 10 295 0.372.00 470 480 480 477 10 10 15 12 312 0.393.00 490 490 490 490 15 25 35 25 312 0.394.00 500 520 505 508 40 40 45 42 313 0.395.00 520 540 530 530 50 40 55 48 328 0.416.00 540 540 545 542 65 60 65 63 325 0.40
14.00 565 565 560 563 100 90 90 93 317 0.3921.00 610 640 625 625 140 135 140 138 333 0.4128.00 680 690 710 693 190 190 185 188 352 0.4460.00 770 760 770 767 230 230 220 227 387 0.48
Strains for control specimensShrinkage
Note: Values in Columns [2] through [11] are to be multiplied by 10-6 to get the strains in in./in.
Strains for specimens subjected to sustained load
H-9
Table HQ7 (a): Unit Creep Strains and Unit Shrinkage for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash
Timeunder Total Unit Unit Specific
Sustained No. 1 No. 2 Average No. 1 No. 2 Average Creep Strain CreepLoad (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in./psi)
in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ]0.00 150 170 160 0 0 0 0 0.000.17 200 230 215 0 0 0 55 0.070.33 255 270 263 0 0 0 103 0.130.50 295 310 303 0 0 0 143 0.180.67 340 350 345 0 0 0 185 0.230.83 350 380 365 5 5 5 200 0.251.00 375 395 385 5 5 5 220 0.281.33 405 415 410 5 5 5 245 0.311.67 435 445 440 5 5 8 272 0.342.00 455 465 460 10 10 15 285 0.363.00 480 490 485 20 20 25 300 0.374.00 500 505 503 30 30 40 303 0.385.00 505 510 508 40 40 45 303 0.386.00 515 530 523 50 50 60 303 0.38
14.00 545 550 548 80 80 90 298 0.3721.00 600 610 605 110 110 125 320 0.4028.00 650 665 658 150 150 160 338 0.4260.00 695 710 703 180 180 200 343 0.43
to sustained load
Note: Values in Columns [2] through [9] are to be multiplied by 10-6 to get the strains in in./in.
Strains for control specimensStrains for specimens subjected Shrinkage
H-10
Table HQ7: Unit Creep Strains and Unit Shrinkage for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash
Timeunder Total Unit Unit Specific
Sustained No. 1 No. 2 Average No. 1 No. 2 Average Creep Strain CreepLoad (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in./psi)
in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ]
0.00 160 180 170 0 0 0 0 0.000.17 205 210 208 0 0 0 38 0.050.33 250 255 253 0 0 0 83 0.100.50 300 320 310 0 0 0 140 0.180.67 340 360 350 0 0 0 180 0.230.83 365 370 368 5 5 5 193 0.241.00 390 395 393 5 5 5 218 0.271.33 400 420 410 5 5 5 235 0.291.67 450 450 450 5 5 5 275 0.342.00 460 480 470 10 10 10 290 0.363.00 470 490 480 20 20 20 290 0.364.00 495 500 498 30 30 30 298 0.375.00 510 505 508 40 40 40 298 0.376.00 520 515 518 40 40 40 308 0.3814.00 550 555 553 60 70 65 318 0.4021.00 595 590 593 90 110 100 323 0.4028.00 665 670 668 165 145 155 343 0.4360.00 710 710 710 200 195 198 343 0.43
to sustained load
Note: Values in Columns [2] through [9] are to be multiplied by 10-6 to get the strains in in./in.
Strains for control specimensStrains for specimens subjected Shrinkage
H-11
Table HL8: Unit Creep Strains and Unit Shrinkage for Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash
Timeunder Total Unit Unit Specific
Sustained No. 1 No. 2 Average No. 1 No. 2 Average Creep Strain CreepLoad (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in./psi)
in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ]0.00 160 150 155 0 0 0 0 0.000.17 210 210 210 0 0 0 55 0.080.33 255 255 255 0 0 0 100 0.140.50 290 310 300 0 0 0 145 0.200.67 330 340 335 0 0 0 180 0.250.83 355 365 360 0 10 5 200 0.261.00 370 400 385 5 10 8 223 0.291.33 410 415 413 5 10 8 250 0.321.67 435 450 443 10 10 10 278 0.352.00 450 470 460 15 20 18 288 0.363.00 480 490 485 20 35 28 303 0.394.00 500 505 503 35 50 43 305 0.405.00 510 510 510 40 50 45 310 0.416.00 525 540 533 60 70 65 313 0.39
14.00 560 575 568 90 95 93 320 0.4021.00 605 620 613 120 140 130 328 0.4128.00 650 660 655 160 175 168 333 0.4460.00 715 725 720 205 210 208 358 0.45
to sustained load
Note: Values in Columns [2] through [9] are to be multiplied by 10-6 to get the strains in in./in.
Strains for control specimensStrains for specimens subjected Shrinkage
H-12
Table HG9: Unit Creep Strains and Unit Shrinkage for Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash
Timeunder Total Unit Unit Specific
Sustained No. 1 No. 2 Average No. 1 No. 2 Average Creep Strain CreepLoad (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in./psi)
in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ]0.00 150 160 155 0 0 0 0 0.000.17 210 220 215 0 0 0 60 0.070.33 250 275 263 0 0 0 108 0.130.50 290 325 308 0 0 0 153 0.190.67 350 350 350 0 0 0 195 0.240.83 350 385 368 5 5 5 208 0.261.00 380 395 388 5 5 5 228 0.281.33 415 420 418 5 5 5 258 0.321.67 430 450 440 10 10 10 275 0.342.00 460 460 460 15 15 15 290 0.363.00 490 485 488 20 30 25 308 0.384.00 515 505 510 40 40 40 315 0.395.00 525 515 520 40 50 45 320 0.406.00 535 535 535 65 60 63 318 0.3914.00 570 555 563 95 90 93 315 0.3921.00 620 600 610 120 135 128 328 0.4128.00 670 665 668 160 165 163 350 0.4360.00 720 710 715 200 205 203 358 0.44
to sustained load
Note: Values in Columns [2] through [9] are to be multiplied by 10-6 to get the strains in in./in.
Strains for control specimensStrains for specimens subjected Shrinkage
H-13
Table HQ10 (a): Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete
Timeunder Total Unit Unit Specific
Sustained No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average Creep Strain CreepLoad (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in./psi)
in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ]
60.00 760 775 785 773 280 310 275 288 335 0.4260.17 760 770 785 772 280 310 275 288 334 0.4260.33 760 770 785 771 280 310 275 288 333 0.4260.50 760 775 785 773 280 310 280 290 333 0.4260.67 760 775 785 773 285 310 280 292 331 0.4160.83 755 765 775 765 285 315 280 294 321 0.4061.00 755 765 775 765 285 315 290 297 318 0.4061.33 755 765 760 762 285 315 290 297 315 0.3961.67 755 765 760 762 290 315 290 299 313 0.3962.00 750 765 760 759 290 315 290 299 310 0.3963.00 745 760 755 753 290 320 290 301 302 0.3864.00 745 755 750 750 290 320 290 301 299 0.3765.00 745 755 745 749 295 320 295 303 296 0.3766.00 745 755 745 749 295 320 295 303 296 0.3767.00 745 755 745 749 300 325 300 308 291 0.3668.00 740 750 730 745 300 330 300 309 286 0.3669.00 740 750 730 745 300 330 305 312 283 0.3570.00 740 750 730 745 305 330 305 313 282 0.35
Note: Values in Columns [2] through [11] are to be multiplied by 10-6 to get the strains in in./in.
Strains for control specimensShrinkage
Strains for specimens subjected to sustained load
H-14
Table HQ10: Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete
Timeunder Total Unit Unit Specific
Sustained No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average Creep Strain CreepLoad (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in./psi)
in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ]
60.00 770 765 780 772 280 280 280 280 332 0.4160.17 770 765 780 772 280 285 285 283 328 0.4160.33 770 765 780 772 280 285 285 283 328 0.4160.50 770 765 775 770 280 285 290 285 325 0.4160.67 765 765 775 768 280 295 290 288 320 0.4060.83 765 760 775 767 285 295 290 290 317 0.4061.00 765 760 775 767 285 295 295 292 315 0.3961.33 765 760 770 765 285 295 295 292 313 0.3961.67 760 760 770 763 290 295 295 293 310 0.3962.00 760 755 770 762 290 300 295 295 307 0.3863.00 760 755 770 762 295 300 300 298 303 0.3864.00 760 755 765 760 295 300 300 298 302 0.3865.00 760 755 765 760 295 310 300 302 298 0.3766.00 755 755 750 753 295 310 305 303 290 0.3667.00 755 755 750 753 300 310 305 305 288 0.3668.00 755 750 740 748 300 315 310 308 280 0.3569.00 755 750 740 748 300 315 310 308 280 0.3570.00 755 750 740 748 300 320 315 312 277 0.35
Note: Values in Columns [2] through [11] are to be multiplied by 10-6 to get the strains in in./in.
Strains for control specimensShrinkage
Strains for specimens subjected to sustained load
H-15
Table HL11: Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Control Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete
Timeunder Total Unit Unit Specific
Sustained No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average Creep Strain CreepLoad (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in./psi)
in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ]
60.00 790 800 810 800 315 290 300 302 338 0.4260.17 790 800 800 797 315 290 300 302 335 0.4160.33 790 795 800 795 315 290 300 302 333 0.4160.50 785 795 800 793 315 290 300 302 332 0.4160.67 785 795 800 793 315 290 300 302 332 0.4160.83 785 790 800 792 315 295 300 303 328 0.4161.00 785 790 795 790 315 295 300 303 327 0.4061.33 775 790 795 787 320 295 305 307 320 0.4061.67 775 780 795 783 320 300 310 310 313 0.3962.00 770 780 790 780 325 300 310 312 308 0.3863.00 770 780 790 780 325 300 310 312 308 0.3864.00 770 780 790 780 325 300 310 312 308 0.3865.00 760 780 790 777 325 300 310 312 305 0.3866.00 760 780 790 777 325 300 310 312 305 0.3867.00 760 775 785 773 330 305 315 317 297 0.3768.00 760 775 780 772 330 305 315 317 295 0.3769.00 760 770 780 770 330 305 325 320 290 0.3670.00 755 770 780 768 335 310 330 325 283 0.35
Strains for control specimensShrinkage
Note: Values in Columns [2] through [11] are to be multiplied by 10-6 to get the strains in in./in.
Strains for specimens subjected to sustained load
H-16
Table HG12: Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Control Granite Bridge Deck Concrete
Timeunder Total Unit Unit Specific
Sustained No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average Creep Strain CreepLoad (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in./psi)
in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ]
60.00 780 790 800 790 280 290 300 290 350 0.4360.17 780 790 800 790 280 290 300 290 350 0.4360.33 770 790 790 783 280 290 300 290 343 0.4260.50 770 780 790 780 280 290 300 290 340 0.4260.67 760 770 790 773 280 290 300 290 333 0.4160.83 760 770 790 773 285 290 305 293 330 0.4161.00 755 765 785 768 285 295 305 295 323 0.4061.33 755 765 780 767 285 295 305 295 322 0.4061.67 750 765 780 765 285 295 310 297 318 0.3962.00 750 765 780 765 285 295 310 297 318 0.3963.00 750 760 775 762 285 300 310 298 313 0.3964.00 750 760 775 762 290 300 310 300 312 0.3965.00 745 760 775 760 290 300 315 302 308 0.3866.00 745 755 775 758 295 300 315 303 305 0.3867.00 745 755 775 758 295 305 320 307 302 0.3768.00 740 755 770 755 295 305 320 307 298 0.3769.00 740 755 770 755 300 305 320 308 297 0.3770.00 740 755 770 755 300 310 320 310 295 0.37
Strains for control specimensShrinkage
Note: Values in Columns [2] through [11] are to be multiplied by 10-6 to get the strains in in./in.
Strains for specimens subjected to sustained load
H-17
Table HQ13 (a): Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash
Timeunder Total Unit Unit Specific
Sustained No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average Creep Strain CreepLoad (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in./psi)
in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ]
60.00 640 610 600 617 220 225 230 225 232 0.2960.17 640 610 600 617 220 225 230 225 232 0.2960.33 640 610 600 617 220 225 230 226 231 0.2960.50 640 610 595 616 225 225 230 228 228 0.2960.67 640 610 595 616 225 225 230 228 228 0.2960.83 635 605 595 612 225 225 230 228 224 0.2861.00 635 605 595 612 225 230 230 229 223 0.2861.33 635 605 595 612 225 230 235 231 221 0.2861.67 635 605 590 610 225 230 235 231 219 0.2762.00 630 600 580 603 225 230 235 231 212 0.2763.00 625 590 570 595 225 230 235 232 203 0.2564.00 610 585 560 585 230 230 240 234 191 0.2465.00 600 580 555 579 230 235 240 236 183 0.2366.00 600 580 550 578 230 235 240 236 182 0.2367.00 600 580 550 578 235 235 240 237 181 0.2368.00 600 580 550 578 235 235 240 237 181 0.2369.00 600 580 550 578 235 235 240 237 181 0.2370.00 600 580 550 578 235 235 240 237 181 0.23
Note: Values in Columns [2] through [11] are to be multiplied by 10-6 to get the strains in in./in.
Strains for control specimensShrinkage
Strains for specimens subjected to sustained load
H-18
Table HQ13: Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash
Timeunder Total Unit Unit Specific
Sustained No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average Creep Strain CreepLoad (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in./psi)
in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ]
60.00 615 595 645 618 215 210 210 212 237 0.3060.17 615 595 645 618 220 210 210 213 235 0.2960.33 615 595 645 618 220 210 210 213 235 0.2960.50 615 595 645 618 220 210 210 213 235 0.2960.67 615 595 645 618 225 210 215 217 232 0.2960.83 615 595 645 618 225 215 215 218 230 0.2961.00 610 590 645 615 225 215 215 218 227 0.2861.33 610 590 640 613 225 215 215 218 225 0.2861.67 610 590 640 613 225 215 215 218 225 0.2862.00 610 590 640 613 225 215 215 218 225 0.2863.00 610 585 640 612 225 215 220 220 222 0.2864.00 600 585 640 608 225 220 220 222 217 0.2765.00 590 585 635 603 230 220 220 223 210 0.2666.00 585 585 635 602 230 220 220 223 208 0.2667.00 585 580 635 600 230 220 220 223 207 0.2668.00 580 575 635 597 230 225 225 227 200 0.2569.00 580 575 630 595 230 225 225 227 198 0.2570.00 575 575 630 593 235 230 235 233 190 0.24
Note: Values in Columns [2] through [11] are to be multiplied by 10-6 to get the strains in in./in.
Strains for control specimensShrinkage
Strains for specimens subjected to sustained load
H-19
Table HL14: Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash
Timeunder Total Unit Unit Specific
Sustained No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average Creep Strain CreepLoad (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in./psi)
in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ]
60.00 625 645 650 640 225 240 235 233 242 0.3060.17 625 645 650 640 225 240 235 233 242 0.3060.33 620 645 645 637 225 240 235 233 238 0.2960.50 620 645 645 637 225 245 235 235 237 0.2960.67 620 645 645 637 225 245 240 237 235 0.2960.83 620 640 645 635 225 245 240 237 233 0.2961.00 620 640 645 635 230 245 240 238 232 0.2961.33 615 640 640 632 230 245 240 238 228 0.2861.67 615 640 640 632 230 245 240 238 228 0.2862.00 615 635 640 630 230 245 240 238 227 0.2863.00 615 635 635 628 235 250 245 243 220 0.2764.00 615 635 635 628 235 250 245 243 220 0.2765.00 610 630 635 625 235 250 245 243 217 0.2766.00 610 630 635 625 235 250 245 243 217 0.2767.00 610 630 635 625 235 250 250 245 215 0.2768.00 605 625 630 620 235 250 250 245 210 0.2669.00 605 620 625 617 240 255 255 250 202 0.2570.00 600 610 615 608 240 260 255 252 192 0.24
Strains for control specimensShrinkage
Note: Values in Columns [2] through [11] are to be multiplied by 10-6 to get the strains in in./in.
Strains for specimens subjected to sustained load
H-20
Table HG15: Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash
Timeunder Total Unit Unit Specific
Sustained No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average Creep Strain CreepLoad (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in./psi)
in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ]
60.00 620 620 615 618 230 230 220 227 239 0.3060.17 620 620 610 617 230 230 220 227 237 0.2960.33 620 615 610 615 230 230 220 227 235 0.2960.50 615 615 610 613 230 235 220 228 232 0.2960.67 615 615 610 613 230 235 220 228 232 0.2960.83 610 615 610 612 230 235 220 228 230 0.2961.00 610 615 610 612 235 235 220 230 229 0.2861.33 610 610 600 607 235 235 225 232 222 0.2761.67 610 610 600 607 235 235 225 232 222 0.2762.00 605 605 600 603 235 235 225 232 219 0.2763.00 605 605 595 602 235 235 225 232 217 0.2764.00 600 605 590 598 235 240 225 233 212 0.2665.00 600 600 590 597 235 240 225 233 210 0.2666.00 600 600 580 593 235 240 225 233 207 0.2667.00 600 590 570 587 235 240 230 235 199 0.2568.00 595 590 560 582 235 240 235 237 192 0.2469.00 595 590 560 582 235 240 235 237 192 0.2470.00 595 585 560 580 235 240 235 237 190 0.24
Strains for control specimensShrinkage
Note: Values in Columns [2] through [11] are to be multiplied by 10-6 to get the strains in in./in.
Strains for specimens subjected to sustained load
H-21
Table HQ16 (a): Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash
Timeunder Total Unit Unit Specific
Sustained No. 1 No. 2 Average No. 1 No. 2 Average Creep Strain CreepLoad (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in./psi)
in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ]
60.00 560 570 565 195 200 198 207 0.2660.17 560 565 562 195 200 198 204 0.2660.33 560 565 562 200 200 200 202 0.2560.50 555 560 557 200 200 200 197 0.2560.67 555 560 557 200 200 200 197 0.2560.83 555 555 555 200 210 204 191 0.2461.00 555 550 553 200 210 204 189 0.2461.33 550 550 550 200 210 204 186 0.2361.67 550 540 545 200 210 205 180 0.2362.00 550 540 545 210 210 209 176 0.2263.00 550 540 545 210 210 210 175 0.2264.00 545 540 543 210 215 212 171 0.2165.00 545 540 543 210 215 212 171 0.2166.00 545 540 543 215 215 215 167 0.2167.00 540 540 540 215 215 215 164 0.2168.00 535 535 535 215 220 217 158 0.2069.00 535 535 535 215 220 217 158 0.2070.00 535 535 535 215 220 217 158 0.20
Note: Values in Columns [2] through [9] are to be multiplied by 10-6 to get the strains in in./in.
Strains for specimens subjected to sustained load
Strains for control specimensShrinkage
H-22
Table HQ16: Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash
Timeunder Total Unit Unit Specific
Sustained No. 1 No. 2 Average No. 1 No. 2 Average Creep Strain CreepLoad (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in./psi)
in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ]
60.00 575 560 568 200 195 198 200 0.2560.17 575 560 568 200 195 198 200 0.2560.33 575 560 568 200 195 198 200 0.2560.50 575 555 565 200 195 198 198 0.2560.67 575 555 565 200 195 198 198 0.2560.83 570 555 563 200 195 198 195 0.2461.00 570 555 563 205 200 203 190 0.2461.33 570 550 560 205 200 203 188 0.2361.67 570 550 560 205 200 203 188 0.2362.00 565 550 558 205 200 203 185 0.2363.00 565 545 555 205 205 205 180 0.2364.00 560 545 553 205 205 205 178 0.2265.00 560 545 553 205 205 205 178 0.2266.00 555 540 548 210 210 210 168 0.2167.00 555 535 545 210 210 210 165 0.2168.00 550 535 543 210 210 210 163 0.2069.00 550 530 540 210 215 213 158 0.2070.00 545 530 538 210 215 213 155 0.19
Note: Values in Columns [2] through [9] are to be multiplied by 10-6 to get the strains in in./in.
Strains for specimens subjected to sustained load
Strains for control specimensShrinkage
H-23
Table HL17: Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash
Timeunder Total Unit Unit Specific
Sustained No. 1 No. 2 Average No. 1 No. 2 Average Creep Strain CreepLoad (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in./psi)
in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ]
60.00 575 585 580 205 210 208 218 0.2760.17 575 585 580 205 210 208 218 0.2760.33 575 580 578 205 210 208 215 0.2760.50 575 580 578 205 210 208 215 0.2760.67 570 580 575 205 210 208 213 0.2660.83 570 580 575 205 210 208 213 0.2661.00 570 575 573 205 215 210 208 0.2661.33 565 575 570 210 215 213 203 0.2561.67 560 575 568 210 215 213 200 0.2562.00 560 575 568 210 215 213 200 0.2563.00 560 575 568 215 215 215 198 0.2464.00 560 575 568 215 220 218 195 0.2465.00 560 570 565 215 220 218 193 0.2466.00 555 570 563 215 220 218 190 0.2467.00 550 565 558 215 220 218 185 0.2368.00 550 565 558 220 225 223 180 0.2269.00 550 565 558 220 225 223 180 0.2270.00 540 555 548 220 225 223 170 0.21
to sustained load
Note: Values in Columns [2] through [9] are to be multiplied by 10-6 to get the strains in in./in.
Strains for control specimensStrains for specimens subjected Shrinkage
H-24
Table HG18: Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash
Timeunder Total Unit Unit Specific
Sustained No. 1 No. 2 Average No. 1 No. 2 Average Creep Strain CreepLoad (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in./psi)
in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ]
60.00 580 560 570 200 205 203 213 0.2660.17 580 560 570 200 205 203 213 0.2660.33 580 560 570 200 210 205 210 0.2660.50 580 560 570 200 210 205 210 0.2660.67 575 555 565 200 210 205 205 0.2560.83 575 555 565 200 210 205 205 0.2561.00 575 550 563 205 210 208 200 0.2561.33 570 550 560 205 210 208 198 0.2461.67 570 545 558 205 215 210 193 0.2462.00 570 540 555 205 215 210 190 0.2463.00 570 540 555 210 215 213 188 0.2364.00 565 530 548 210 220 215 178 0.2265.00 565 530 548 210 220 215 178 0.2266.00 565 525 545 210 220 215 175 0.2267.00 560 525 543 210 220 215 173 0.2168.00 560 520 540 215 220 218 168 0.2169.00 560 520 540 215 220 218 168 0.2170.00 550 510 530 215 225 220 168 0.21
to sustained load
Note: Values in Columns [2] through [9] are to be multiplied by 10-6 to get the strains in in./in.
Strains for control specimensStrains for specimens subjected Shrinkage
H-25
0100200300400500600700800900
10001100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7
Time in Days
Tot
al U
nit S
trai
n,(1
0-6 in
/in)
1200
0
CQB Total Unit StrainCQB Unit Shrinkage Strain
Age at loading : 28 daysStress applied : 800 psiCompressive Strength : 5170 psiStress - Strength Ratio : 15.47%
Unit Elastic Strain
Unit Shrinkage
Unit Creep Strain
Figure HQ1 (a): Total Unit Strain and Unit Shrinkage Strain for Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time in Days
Tot
al U
nit s
trai
n (1
0^-6
, in/
in)
90
CQB Total Unit StrainCQB Shrinkage strain
Age at loading: 28 daysStress Applied: 800 psi
Compressive Strength: 5211 psiStress-strength ratio : 15.35 %
Unit Elastic StrainUnit Shrinkage Strain
Unit Creep Strain
Figure HQ1: Total Unit Strain and Unit Shrinkage Strain for Control Quartzite
Bridge Deck Concrete
H-26
Figure HL2: Total Unit Strain and Unit Shrinkage Strain for Control Limestone
Bridge Deck Concrete
0
100
200
300
400500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Time in Days
Tot
al U
nit S
trai
n,(1
0-6 in
/in)
CGB Total Unit Strain
CGB Unit Shrinkage Strain
Age at loading : 28 daysStress applied : 808 psi
Compressive Strength : 5001 psiStress - Strength Ratio : 16.16 %
Unit Elastic Strain
Unit Creep Strain
Unit Shrinkage Strain
Figure HG3: Total Unit Strain and Unit Shrinkage Strain for Control Granite Bridge Deck Concrete
H-27
0100200300400500600700800900
100011001200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7
Time in Days
Tot
al U
nit S
trai
n, (1
0-6 in
/ in
)
0
OQB Total Unit StrainOQB Unit Shrinkage Strain
Age at loading : 28 daysStress Applied : 800 psiCompressive Strength : 5424 psiStress Strength Ratio : 14.75 %
Unit Elastic Strain Unit Shrinkage Strain
Unit Creep Strain
Figure HQ4 (a): Total Unit Strain and Unit Shrinkage Strain for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash
0100200300400500600700800900
100011001200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time in Days
Tot
al U
nit s
trai
n (1
0^-6
, in/
in)
OQB Total StrainOQB Shrinkage Strain
Unit Elastic Strain Unit Shrinkage Strain
Unit Creep StrainAge at loading: 28 daysStress Applied : 800 psi
Compressive strength: 5364 psiStress-Strength ratio: 14.91 %
Figure HQ4: Total Unit Strain and Unit Shrinkage Strain for Optimum Quartzite
Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash
H-28
Figure HL5: Total Unit Strain and Unit Shrinkage Strain for Optimum Limestone
Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time in Days
Tot
al U
nit S
trai
n,(1
0-6 in
/in)
OGB Total Unit Strain
OGB Unit Shrinkage Strain
Age at loading : 28 daysStress applied : 808 psi
Compressive Strength : 5440 psiStress - Strength Ratio : 14.85 %
Unit Elastic Strain
Unit Creep Strain
Unit Shrinkage Strain
Figure HG6: Total Unit Strain and Unit Shrinkage Strain for Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash
H-29
0100200300400500600700800900
10001100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7
Time in Days
Tot
al U
nit S
trai
n ( 1
0-6 in
/in)
1200
0
OQFB Total Unit StrainOQFB Unit Shrinkage Strain
Age at loading : 28 daysStress Applied : 800 psiCompressive Strength : 6278 psiStress Strength Ratio : 12.74 %
Unit Elastic StrainUnit Shrinkage Strain
Unit Creep Strain
Figure HQ7 (a): Total Unit Strain and Unit Shrinkage Strain for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash
0100200300400500600700800900
100011001200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time in Days
Tot
al U
nit s
trai
n (1
0^-6
, in/
in)
90
OQFB Total Unit strainOQFB Shrinkage Strain
Age at loading: 28 daysStress Applied: 800 psi
Compressive strength:6473 psiStress-Strength ratio: 12.35 %
Unit Elastic StrainUnit Shrinkage Strain
Unit Creep Strain
Figure HQ7: Total Unit Strain and Unit Shrinkage Strain for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash
H-30
Figure HL8: Total Unit Strain and Unit Shrinkage Strain for Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Time in Days
Tot
al U
nit S
trai
n,(1
0-6 in
/in)
OGFB Total Unit StrainOGFB Unit Shrinkage Strain
Age at loading : 28 daysStress applied : 808 psi
Compressive Strength : 5753 psiStress - Strength Ratio : 14.04 %
Unit Elastic Strain
Unit Creep Strain
Unit Shrinkage Strain
Figure HG9: Total Unit Strain and Unit Shrinkage Strain for Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash
H-31
0
100
200
300
400
500
56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72
Time in Days
Tot
al U
nit C
reep
Str
ain,
10-6
in/in
Age at Unloading : 60 days
Creep Recovery for 10 days
Each data point is average of three specimens
Unit Elastic Recovery
Unit Creep Recovery
Unit Creep Strain
Figure HQ10 (a): Unit Elastic and Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete
0
100
200
300
400
500
58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72
Time in Days
Tot
al U
nit C
reep
Str
ain(
10^-
6, in
/in)
CQB Total Unit creep strain
Unit Creep Strain
Unit Elastic Recovery
Unit Creep Recovery
Age at Unloading 60 daysCreep Recovery for 10 daysEach data is average of three points
Figure HQ10: Unit Elastic and Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete
H-32
Figure HL11: Unit Elastic and Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Control
Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete
0
100
200
300
400
500
56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72Time in Days
Tot
al U
nit C
reep
Str
ain,
10-6
in/in Unit Elastic Recovery
Unit CreepRecovery
Unit Creep Strain Age At Unloading = 60 DaysCreep Recovery for 10 Days
Each Data Point is Average ofThree Specimens
Figure HG12: Unit Elastic and Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Control
Granite Bridge Deck Concrete
H-33
0
100
200
300
400
500
56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72
Time in Days
Tot
al U
nit C
reep
Str
ain,
10-6
in/in
Age at Unloading : 60 days
Creep Recovery for 10 days
Each data point is average of three specimens
Unit Elastic Recovery
Unit Creep Recovery
Unit Creep Strain
Figure HQ13 (a): Unit Elastic and Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash
0
100
200
300
400
500
58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72
Time in Days
Tot
al U
nit C
reep
Str
ain(
10^-
6, in
/in)
OQB Total Unit creep strain
Unit Creep Strain
Unit Elastic Recovery
Unit Creep Recovery
Age at Unloading 60 daysCreep Recovery for 10 daysEach data is average of three points
Figure HQ13: Unit Elastic and Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash
H-34
Figure HL14: Unit Elastic and Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash
0
100
200
300
400
500
56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72Time in Days
Tot
al U
nit C
reep
Str
ain,
10-6
in/in
Unit Elastic Recovery
Unit CreepRecovery
Unit Creep StrainAge At Unloading = 60 DaysCreep Recovery for 10 Days
Each Data Point is Average ofThree Specimens
Figure HG15: Unit Elastic and Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Optimum
Granite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash
H-35
0
100
200
300
400
500
56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72
Time in Days
Tot
al U
nit C
reep
Str
ain,
10-6
in/in
Age at Unloading : 60 days
Creep Recovery for 10 days
Each data point is average of three specimens
Unit Elastic Recovery
Unit Creep Recovery
Unit Creep Strain
Figure HQ15 (a): Unit Elastic and Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash
0
100
200
300
400
500
58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72
Time in Days
Tot
al U
nit C
reep
Str
ain(
10^-
6, in
/in)
OQFB Total Unit creep strain
Unit Creep Strain
Unit Elastic Recovery
Unit Creep RecoveryAge at Unloading 60 days
Creep Recovery for 10 daysEach data is average of three points
Figure HQ15: Unit Elastic and Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash
H-36
Figure HL16: Unit Elastic and Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Optimum
Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash
0
100
200
300
400
500
56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72Time in Days
Tot
al U
nit C
reep
Str
ain,
10-6
in/in
Unit Elastic Recovery
Unit CreepRecoveryUnit Creep Strain
Age At Unloading = 60 DaysCreep Recovery for 10 Days
Each Data Point is Average ofTwo Specimens
Figure HG17: Unit Elastic and Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Optimum
Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash
Appendix – I
Details of mixes done for the determination of Freeze Thaw
I-1
Table IQ1 (a): Pulse Time Recorded for Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Quartzite Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing
Mix Specimen ID Curing
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300CQB F-T 60.9 61.5 62.2 62.4 62.7 63.1 63.5 63.8 64.1 64.3 64.7CQB Std 64.3 64.0 63.7 63.6 63.3 62.6 62.2 61.8 61.5 61.0 60.8
OQB F-T 60.2 60.6 61.5 61.6 62.0 62.4 63.0 63.3 63.5 63.7 64.1OQB Std 63.5 63.0 62.8 62.2 62.0 61.5 61.2 61.0 60.6 60.3 59.9
OQFB F-T 60.0 60.3 60.5 61.3 61.7 62.0 62.1 62.5 62.8 62.9 63.1OQFB Std 62.2 61.8 61.6 61.2 61.0 60.6 60.3 59.7 59.6 58.9 58.6
Pulse Time (μ sec)Freeze Thaw Cycles
Note: This mix was made with 8.4 percent cement reduction. Table IQ2 (a): Pulse Velocity for Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Quartzite Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing
Mix Specimen ID Curing
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300CQB F-T 15398.24 15261.65 15076.24 15027.90 14956.76 14873.28 14765.57 14696.13 14626.87 14581.36 14490.51CQB Std 14591.52 14659.90 14717.57 14740.71 14822.22 14976.38 15072.39 15182.28 15256.40 15368.89 15419.45
OQB F-T 15586.13 15470.46 15256.80 15219.52 15133.42 15024.39 14892.78 14822.14 14775.42 14717.57 14637.08OQB Std 14775.42 14880.99 14940.25 15085.26 15121.95 15247.17 15333.46 15370.88 15471.81 15548.80 15651.78
OQFB F-T 15641.96 15564.03 15513.36 15294.29 15207.06 15133.18 15108.79 15012.10 14940.32 14904.65 14869.16OQFB Std 15084.72 15169.94 15219.20 15331.41 15381.72 15483.59 15560.26 15703.56 15743.08 15916.85 16012.06
Pulse Velocity (ft/sec)Freeze Thaw Cycles
Note: This mix was made with 8.4 percent cement reduction.
I-1
Table IQ1: Pulse Time Recorded for Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Quartzite Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing
Mix ID SpecimenCuring
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300CQB F-T 60.85 61.3 61.4 61.7 61.95 62.3 62.8 62.9 63.1 63.4 63.65CQB Std 64.55 64.15 63.65 63.4 62.8 62.2 61.85 61.5 61.05 60.7 60.35
OQB F-T 60.25 60.55 60.65 61.15 61.5 61.75 62.05 62.25 62.6 63.1 63.2OQB Std 64 63.65 63.2 62.8 62.1 61.75 61 60.75 60.35 60 59.45
OQFB F-T 59.35 59.65 59.85 60.15 60.35 60.7 60.8 61.25 61.75 62.2 62.45OQFB Std 62.95 62.45 62.15 61.8 61.4 61.15 60.3 59.8 59.45 58.8 58.05
Pulse Time (m sec) Freeze thaw Cycles
Note: This mix was made with 10 percent cement reduction.
ith Quartzite Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw Table IQ2: Pulse Velocity for Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens w and Standard Curing
Mix ID SpecimenCuring
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300CQB F-T 15408.00 15294.29 15269.74 15196.44 15135.39 15049.55 14929.29 14905.55 14858.71 14787.99 14729.72CQB Std 14523.84 14614.90 14729.72 14787.65 14928.68 15072.39 15157.65 15243.94 15356.28 15444.81 15534.48
OQB F-T 15560.26 15483.08 15457.55 15331.24 15243.90 15182.28 15108.87 15060.25 14976.08 14857.37 14833.86OQB Std 14648.47 14729.00 14833.86 14928.38 15096.66 15182.43 15370.34 15432.94 15535.25 15625.39 15769.83
OQFB F-T 15796.14 15716.69 15664.17 15586.05 15534.39 15444.81 15419.45 15306.13 15182.20 15072.50 15012.25OQFB Std 14893.01 15012.25 15084.48 15169.90 15268.89 15331.41 15547.43 15677.65 15770.46 15945.03 16150.84
Pulse Velocity (ft/ sec) Freeze thaw Cycles
Note: This mix was made with 10 percent cement reduction.
I-2
Table IL3: Pulse Time Recorded for Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Limestone Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing
Mix Specimen ID Curing
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300CLB F-T 62.1 62.9 63.0 63.4 63.8 64.2 64.3 64.4 64.7 65.0 65.4CLB Std 65.8 65.4 65.3 64.3 63.7 63.3 62.9 62.6 61.9 61.5 61.1
OLB F-T 61.5 61.9 62.5 62.9 63.2 63.6 63.9 64.0 64.1 64.2 64.5OLB Std 65.2 64.8 64.1 63.6 63.1 62.8 62.2 61.8 61.3 61.0 60.5
OLFB F-T 60.3 60.6 61.3 61.6 61.7 62.0 62.3 62.5 62.9 63.1 63.2OLFB Std 64.1 63.7 63.1 62.7 62.0 61.6 61.1 60.8 60.0 59.7 59.5
Pulse Time ( 8sec)Freeze Thaw Cycles
Note: This mix was made with 10 percent cement reduction. Table IL4: Pulse Velocity for Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Limestone Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing
Mix Specimen ID Curing
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300CLB F-T 15096.77 14916.93 14881.55 14787.99 14694.68 14615.26 14592.93 14558.33 14491.20 14434.87 14335.16CLB Std 14258.63 14335.16 14368.23 14580.66 14718.01 14811.02 14916.70 14988.25 15145.55 15256.56 15356.36
OLB F-T 15244.26 15145.40 15012.02 14904.61 14845.61 14752.25 14682.93 14648.47 14637.01 14602.84 14546.24OLB Std 14378.87 14467.63 14625.58 14752.17 14857.37 14928.38 15072.70 15170.26 15294.29 15381.72 15508.95
OLFB F-T 15560.26 15470.68 15307.36 15232.33 15195.93 15133.97 15060.33 15012.10 14904.76 14857.52 14833.90OLFB Std 14637.08 14729.00 14857.52 14964.32 15121.01 15219.20 15356.36 15432.11 15638.13 15703.52 15769.65
Freeze Thaw CyclesPulse Velocity (ft/sec)
Note: This mix was made with 10 percent cement reduction.
I-3
Table IG5: Pulse Time Recorded for Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Granite Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing
30062.4 62.7 62.9 63.1 63.7 64.1 64.2 64.3 64.8
CGB Std 65.1 64.3 63.8 63.5 63.3 62.6 62.2 61.8 61.5 61.0 60.8
OGB F-T 60.8 61.6 61.9 62.2 62.4 62.6 63.0 63.4 63.5 63.9 63.9OGB Std 64.3 63.8 63.3 62.8 62.4 62.0 61.2 61.0 60.6 60.3 59.9
OGFB F-T 60.0 60.8 61.2 61.3 61.7 62.0 62.1 62.5 62.8 62.9 63.1OGFB Std 63.2 62.8 62.5 62.1 61.5 61.0 60.5 59.9 59.6 58.9 58.6
Pulse Time (
ξMix Specimen
ID Curing60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270
sec)Freeze Thaw Cycles
0 30CGB F-T 61.5 62.0
Note: This mix was made with 10 percent cement reduction.
ns with Granite Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw and Table IG6: Pulse Velocity for Bridge Deck Concrete Specime Standard Curing
Mix Specimen ID Curing
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300CGB F-T 15244.91 15122.38 15026.51 14955.96 14919.88 14859.20 14729.72 14627.33 14604.54 14581.36 14468.45CGB Std 14412.07 14580.66 14694.68 14764.11 14822.22 14976.38 15072.39 15182.28 15256.40 15368.89 15419.45
OGB F-T 15432.11 15220.16 15159.31 15085.26 15036.33 14988.10 14880.95 14798.82 14775.50 14683.07 14683.07OGB Std 14591.52 14694.39 14810.57 14940.32 15036.17 15133.97 15333.46 15370.88 15471.81 15548.80 15651.78
OGFB F-T 15625.04 15432.94 15332.39 15294.29 15207.06 15133.18 15108.79 15012.10 14940.32 14904.65 14869.16OGFB Std 14845.61 14940.25 15012.02 15108.79 15244.26 15369.22 15496.54 15664.43 15743.08 15916.85 16012.06
Pulse Velocity (ft/sec)Freeze Thaw Cycles
Note: This mix was made with 10 percent cement reduction.
I-4
Table IQ7 (a): Percentage Change in the Pulse Velocity for Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Quartzite Aggred Standard Curing
gate
Note: This mix was made with 8.4 percent cement reduction.
Table IQ8 (a): Mean Expansion of Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Quartzite Aggregate subjected to Freeze
subjected to Freeze Thaw an
Thaw and Standard Curing Mix ID Specimen
Curing0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300
CQB F-T 0.00000 0.00625 0.01200 0.01500 0.01775 0.02025 0.02075 0.02400 0.02550 0.02675 0.02800CQB Std 0.00000 0.00150 0.00475 0.00800 0.00975 0.01300 0.01500 0.01575 0.01675 0.01725 0.01825
OQB F-T 0.00000 0.00225 0.00450 0.00750 0.00925 0.01200 0.01425 0.01525 0.01625 0.01775 0.01875OQB Std 0.00000 0.00075 0.00225 0.00375 0.00525 0.00650 0.00825 0.00925 0.01000 0.01150 0.01225
OQFB F-T 0.00000 0.00150 0.00250 0.00325 0.00525 0.00650 0.00800 0.01000 0.01075 0.01175 0.01350OQFB Std 0.00000 0.00100 0.00175 0.00225 0.00300 0.00325 0.00450 0.00500 0.00575 0.00675 0.00675
Mean Expansion (%) Freeze thaw Cycles
Note: This mix was made with 8.4 percent cement reduction.
Mix Specimen ID Curing
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
CQB F-T 100.00 99.11 97.91 97.60 97.13 96.59 95.90 95.45 95.00 94.71 94.12CQB Std 100.00 100.47 100.87 101.02 101.58 102.64 103.30 104.05 104.56 105.33 105.67
OQB F-T 100.00 99.26 97.89 97.65 97.10 96.40 95.55 95.10 94.80 94.43 93.91OQB Std 100.00 100.71 101.12 102.10 102.35 103.19 103.78 104.03 104.71 105.24 105.93
OQFB F-T 100.00 99.50 99.18 97.79 97.24 96.77 96.61 95.99 95.53 95.31 95.08OQFB Std 100.00 100.57 100.89 101.64 101.97 102.65 103.16 104.10 104.37 105.52 106.15
Change in Pulse Velocity (%)Freeze Thaw Cycles
I-5
Table IQ7: Percentage Change in the Pulse Velocity for Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Quartzite Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing
Mix ID SpecimenCuring
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300CQB F-T 100 99.26 99.10 98.62 98.23 97.67 96.89 96.74 96.43 95.98 95.60CQB Std 100 100.63 101.42 101.82 102.79 103.78 104.37 104.96 105.73 106.34 106.96
OQB F-T 100 99.50 99.34 98.53 97.97 97.57 97.10 96.79 96.25 95.48 95.33OQB Std 100 100.55 101.27 101.91 103.06 103.64 104.93 105.35 106.05 106.67 107.65
OQFB F-T 100 99.50 99.16 98.67 98.34 97.78 97.62 96.90 96.11 95.42 95.04OQFB Std 100 100.80 101.29 101.86 102.52 102.94 104.39 105.27 105.89 107.06 108.44
Change in Pulse Velocity (%) Freeze thaw Cycles
Note: This mix was made with 10 percent cement reduction. Table IQ8: Mean Expansion of Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Quartzite Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing
Mix ID Specimen Mean Expansion (%)Curing
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300CQB F-T 0.00000 0.00275 0.00875 0.01250 0.01925 0.02125 0.02325 0.02425 0.02550 0.02625 0.02850CQB Std 0.00000 0.00150 0.00400 0.00625 0.00800 0.00975 0.01100 0.01200 0.01375 0.01725 0.01900
OQB F-T 0.00000 0.00125 0.00300 0.00525 0.00608 0.00825 0.01125 0.01250 0.01450 0.01600 0.01725OQB Std 0.00000 0.00150 0.00225 0.00350 0.00500 0.00575 0.00700 0.00850 0.00925 0.01075 0.01150
OQFB F-T 0.00000 0.00050 0.00125 0.00325 0.00525 0.00650 0.00800 0.01050 0.01075 0.01275 0.01300OQFB Std 0.00000 0.00150 0.00400 0.00625 0.00800 0.00975 0.01100 0.01200 0.01375 0.01725 0.01210
Freeze thaw Cycles
Note: This mix was made with 10 percent cement reduction.
I-6
Table IL9: Percentage Change in the Pulse Velocity for Br subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing
idge Deck Concrete Specimens with Limestone Aggregate
Mix Specimen ID Curing
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
CLB F-T 100.00 98.81 98.57 97.95 97.34 96.81 96.66 96.43 95.99 95.61 94.95CLB Std 100.00 100.54 100.77 102.26 103.22 103.87 104.61 105.12 106.22 107.00 107.70
OLB F-T 100.00 99.35 98.48 97.77 97.39 96.78 96.32 96.09 96.02 95.79 95.42OLB Std 100.00 100.62 101.72 102.60 103.33 103.82 104.82 105.50 106.37 106.97 107.86
OLFB F-T 100.00 99.42 98.37 97.89 97.66 97.26 96.79 96.48 95.79 95.48 95.33OLFB Std 100.00 100.63 101.51 102.24 103.31 103.98 104.92 105.43 106.84 107.29 107.74
Change in Pulse Velocity (%)Freeze Thaw Cycles
Note: This mix was made with 10 percent cement reduction. Table IL10: Mean Expansion of Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Limestone Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing
Note: This mix was made with 10 percent cement reduction.
Mix Specimen ID Curing
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
CLB F-T 0.00000 0.00375 0.00800 0.01350 0.01500 0.01900 0.02150 0.02450 0.02700 0.02800 0.03050
CLB Std 0.00000 0.00150 0.00425 0.00675 0.00950 0.01150 0.01350 0.01475 0.01675 0.01800 0.01975
OLB F-T 0.00000 0.00275 0.00400 0.00700 0.01000 0.01225 0.01450 0.01600 0.01700 0.01825 0.02000OLB Std 0.00000 0.00075 0.00225 0.00350 0.00450 0.00675 0.00750 0.00850 0.00950 0.01000 0.01250
OLFB F-T 0.00000 0.00150 0.00250 0.00325 0.00525 0.00650 0.00800 0.01000 0.010755
0.01175 0.01350OLFB Std 0.00000 0.00125 0.00150 0.00275 0.00400 0.00525 0.00650 0.00700 0.00775 0.00850 0.00875
Freeze Thaw CyclesMean Expansion (%)
I-7
Table IG11: Percentage Change in the Pulse Velocity for Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Granite Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing
Mix Specimen ID Curing
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
CGB F-T 100.00 99.20 98.56 98.10 97.86 97.47 96.62 95.95 95.80 95.65 94.91CGB Std 100.00 101.17 101.96 102.44 102.85 103.92 104.58 105.35 105.86 106.64 106.99
OGB F-T 100.00 98.63 98.23 97.75 97.44 97.12 96.43 95.90 95.75 95.15 95.15OGB Std 100.00 100.71 101.50 102.39 103.05 103.72 105.08 105.34 106.03 106.56 107.27
OGFB F-T 100.00 98.77 98.13 97.88 97.32 96.85 96.70 96.08 95.62 95.39 95.16OGFB Std 100.00 100.64 101.12 101.77 102.69 103.53 104.39 105.52 106.05 107.22 107.86
Change in Pulse Velocity (%)Freeze Thaw Cycles
ote: This mix was made with 10 percent cement reduction.
Table IG12: Mean Expansion of Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Granite Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw
5 0.00650 0.00800 0.01000 0.01075 0.01175 0.01350OGFB Std 0.00000 0.00125 0.00225 0.00350 0.00400 0.00500 0.00650 0.00700 0.00775 0.00850 0.00925
Freeze Thaw CyclesMean Expansion (%)
N
and Standard Curing
Mix Specimen ID Curing
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
CGB F-T 0.00000 0.00475 0.00925 0.01425 0.01550 0.02025 0.02275 0.02525 0.02675 0.02825 0.02925CGB Std 0.00000 0.00150 0.00425 0.00625 0.00875 0.01000 0.01275 0.01475 0.01600 0.01800 0.01925
OGB F-T 0.00000 0.00225 0.00450 0.00750 0.00925 0.01200 0.01425 0.01525 0.01625 0.01775 0.01875OGB Std 0.00000 0.00125 0.00225 0.00375 0.00525 0.00650 0.00825 0.00925 0.01000 0.01200 0.01325
OGFB F-T 0.00000 0.00150 0.00250 0.00325 0.0052
Note: This mix was made with 10 percent cement reduction.
I-8
Table IQ13 (a): Durability Factor of Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Quartzite Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing
Note: This mix was made with 8.4 percent cement reduction.
k Concrete Specimens with Quartzite Aggregate subjected to Freeze ThawTable IQ13: Durability Factor of Bridge Dec and Standard Curing
Mix ID Specimen
Curing0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300
CQB F-T 100.00 98.53 98.21 97.27 96.49 95.40 93.88 93.59 93.00 92.12 91.40CQB Std 100.00 101.25 102.86 103.66 105.65 107.70 108.92 110.16 111.80 113.09 114.41
OQB F-T 100.00 99.01 98.69 97.09 95.98 95.20 94.28 93.68 92.63 91.17 90.88OQB Std 100.00 101.11 102.55 103.87 106.21 107.42 110.11 111.00 112.48 113.79 115.90
OQFB F-T 100.00 99.00 98.34 97.36 96.72 95.61 95.29 93.90 92.38 91.06 90.32OQFB Std 100.00 101.61 102.58 103.76 105.12 105.98 108.98 110.81 112.13 114.63 117.61
Durability Factor Freeze thaw Cycles
Note: This mix was made with 10 percent cement reduction.
urability FactorFreeze Thaw Cycles
Mix Specimen DID Curing
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300
CQB F-T 100.00 98.23 95.87 95.25 94.35 93.30 91.97 91.11 90.27 89.70 88.60CQB Std 100.00 100.94 101.74 102.06 103.19 105.35 106.70 108.26 109.32 110.95 111.67
OQB F-T 100.00 98.53 95.83 95.36 94.27 92.93 91.31 90.44 89.87 89.17 88.20OQB Std 100.00 101.44 102.24 104.24 104.76 106.51 107.72 108.24 109.66 110.76 112.22
OQFB F-T 100.00 99.01 98.36 95.64 94.57 93.67 93.37 92.16 91.29 90.86 90.43OQFB Std 100.00 101.14 101.80 103.32 104.00 105.38 106.42 108.39 108.93 111.35 112.69
I-9
mens with Limestone Aggregate subjected to Freeze Table IL14: Durability Factor of Bridge Deck Concrete Speci
Thaw and Standard Curing
Mix Specimen ID Curing
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300
CLB F-T 100.00 97.64 97.17 95.96 94.75 93.73 93.45 93.00 92.15 91.43 90.17CLB Std 100.00 101.08 101.55 104.57 106.55 107.90 109.45 110.49 112.83 114.49 116.00
OLB F-T 100.00 98.71 96.98 95.61 94.85 93.65 92.78 92.35 92.20 91.77 91.05OLB Std 100.00 101.24 103.47 105.26 106.76 108.13 110.94 112.40 114.62 115.38 116.34
OLFB F-T 100.00 98.85 96.78 95.83 95.38 94.60 93.68 93.08 91.75 91.17 90.88OLFB Std 100.00 101.27 103.04 104.54 106.73 108.12 110.08 111.16 114.15 115.12 116.08
Durability FactorFreeze Thaw Cycles
Note: This mix was made with 10 percent cement reduction.
ridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Granite Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing
Table IG15: Durability Factor of B
Mix Specimen ID Curing
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300
CGB F-T 100.00 98.40 97.15 96.23 95.77 95.00 93.36 92.06 91.77 91.48 90.08CGB Std 100.00 102.35 103.97 104.95 105.78 108.00 109.38 110.98 112.07 113.73 114.48
OGB F-T 100.00 97.29 96.52 95.56 94.95 94.33 92.99 91.98 91.68 90.54 90.54OGB Std 100.00 101.41 103.03 104.85 106.19 107.58 110.44 110.79 112.44 113.56 115.06
OGFB F-T 100.00 97.56 96.29 95.81 94.72 93.81 93.51 92.30 91.43 90.99 90.56OGFB Std 100.00 101.28 102.58 103.59 105.46 107.19 108.97 111.35 112.46 114.96 116.34
Durability FactorFreeze Thaw Cycles
Note: This mix was made with 10 percent cement reduction.
I-10
Appendix – J
Concrete Plastic Shrinkage Reduction Potential
J-1
Figure J1: General View of the Plastic Shrinkage Test Set-Up.
Figure J2: Another View of all the Slabs - 24 Hours after the Plastic Shrinkage Test.
J-2
Figure J3: Control Concrete With Quartzite Aggregate.
J-3
Figure J4: Optimized Concrete Without Fly Ash.
J-4
Figure J5: Optimized Concrete With Fly Ash.
K-1
Validity of 0.45 Power Chart in Obtaining the Optimized Aggregate Gradation for Improving the Strength
Aspects of High Performance Concrete
Ramesh K. Panchalan1, Dola K. Erla2, Srikanth Kalahasti2 and V. Ramakrishnan3
1Doctoral Student
2Graduate Student 3Regents Distinguished Professor Emeritus
Department of Civil Engineering South Dakota School of Mines & Technology
Rapid City, SD 57701, USA
Abstract
This paper presents the results of an experimental investigation to determine the validity of 0.45-power chart in obtaining the optimized aggregate gradation for improving the strength characteristics of high performance concrete (HPC). Historically, the 0.45 power chart has been used to develop uniform gradations for asphalt mix designs; however it has now been widely used to develop uniform gradations for portland cement concrete mix designs. Some reports have circulated in the industry that plotting the sieve opening raised to the 0.45 power may not be universally applicable for all aggregates. In this paper the validity of 0.45 power chart has been evaluated using quartzite aggregates. Aggregates of different sizes and gradations were blended to fit exactly the gradations of curves raised to 0.35, 0.40, 0.45, 0.50 and 0.55. Five mixes, which incorporated the aggregate gradations of the five power curves, were made and tested for compressive strength and flexural strength. A control mix was also made whose aggregate gradations did not match the straight-line gradations of the 0.45 power curve. This was achieved by using a single size aggregate and sand. The water-cement ratio and the cement content were kept constant for all the six mixes. The results showed that the mix incorporating the 0.45 power chart gradations gave the highest strength when compared to other power charts and the control concrete. Thus the 0.45 power curve can be adopted
K-2
with confidence to obtain the densest packing of aggregates and it may be universally applicable for all aggregates. INTRODUCTION High Performance Concrete (HPC) is defined (Russell, 1999) as “Concrete meeting special combinations of performance and uniformity requirements that cannot always be achieved routinely using conventional constituents and normal mixing, placing and curing practices”. Thus HPC should necessarily have improved strength and durability properties than ordinary portland cement concrete (PCC). Mostly attempts were made to achieve durability by increasing the cementitious materials content and reducing the water-cementitious materials ratio. But very few have attempted to achieve HPC by using combined well-graded aggregates in concrete. The most important feature of a mix design is aggregate content. The resulting mix design should have a strong aggregate skeleton for permanent deformation resistance and an optimum amount of cement, which acts as a binder for the aggregates. The void space in the aggregate skeleton can be changed by varying the gradation (particle size distribution) of a mixture. A well-graded combined aggregate gradation requires graded coarse aggregates and coarser fine aggregates. But today fine aggregates do not contain predominantly coarse particles. HPC can be achieved by combining aggregates of different sizes and blending them, thus reducing the requirement for additional water and cementitious materials. Optimized aggregate gradation should be the most basic goal of achieving HPC. Once the aggregates are optimized with a low-paste content, the mobility of the concrete mix improves tremendously. A well-graded aggregate can increase the density of the concrete by reducing the void space, which will lower the requirement for cement for binding them together. Most of the problems in concrete are caused due to the presence of excess cement in the concrete. Thus a well-graded aggregate can increase the durability and structural integrity of concrete by optimizing the cement content. PROBLEM STATEMENT Engineers and researchers use the 0.45 power gradation for obtaining the densest possible (maximum density) packing of aggregates. There is concern whether plotting of the sieve size raised to 0.45 power may not be universally applicable to all aggregates. Thus there is a need to evaluate the validity of the 0.45 power chart using an aggregate (other than the granite
K-3
aggregate that was used to develop the 0.45 power curve), to determine whether the chart is universally applicable for all aggregates. BACKGROUND The 0.45 power chart was developed based on the work done by Nijboer from the Netherlands in the 1930’s. He found that the greatest packing of different sized particles occurs when the gradation is a straight line with a slope of 0.45 on a log percent passing vs. log particle size graph. Nijboer (1948) did his experiments on both crushed stone (quarried aggregates) and uncrushed gravel. The 0.45 power worked for both of them. Goode and Lufsey (1962) from the USA further investigated Nijboer’s work. They redid Nijboer's experiment using only gravel aggregate. They created a plot where the y-axis is percent passing (by mass) on arithmetic scale and the x-axis is the sieve size raised to the 0.45 power. Hence, the origin of the 0.45 power chart. But they did not determine how to draw a "maximum density line" for actual gradations. Two methods are available in the literature for drawing the maximum density line (MDL). In one method the MDL is a line drawn from the percent passing the 0.075 mm sieve to the first sieve passing 100 percent. In the other method contained in the Asphalt institute publications MDL is the line drawn from the origin to the maximum sieve size. The Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) investigated the two methods for drawing the maximum density lines. A detailed report is available in the ASTM Special Technical Publication No. 1147. After a detailed investigation it was determined that the second method is better suited for drawing the MDL. Thus basically the 0.45 power chart was developed for HMA mixes and not for cement concrete mixes. And also there is concern whether the 0.45 power chart may not be universally applicable for all aggregates. The second method of drawing the MDL from the origin to the maximum sieve size required a clear definition of the maximum size of the aggregate. Determining the 0.45 Power Curve The 0.45 power curve is obtained by plotting the mathematically combined percent passing for each sieve on a chart having percent passing on the y-axis and sieve sizes raised to the 0.45 power on the x-axis. Sieve sizes include the following: 37.5 mm (1 ½ in.), 25.0 mm (1 in.), 19.0 mm (3/4 in.), 12.5 mm (1/2 in.), 9.5 mm (3/8 in.), 4.75 mm (No. 4), 2.36 mm (No. 8), 1.18 mm (No. 16), 600 μm (No. 30), 300 μm (No. 50), 150 μm (No. 100) and
K-4
75μm (No. 200). The maximum density line is drawn from the origin of the chart to the maximum aggregate size. Nominal Maximum and Maximum Aggregate Size Definitions The definition of the maximum aggregate size is essential to determine the maximum density line (MDL). The Asphalt Institute (ASTM Special Technical Publication No. 1147) defines the:
• Nominal maximum size as one size larger than the first sieve to retain more than 10 percent.
• Maximum size as one size larger than nominal maximum size. There is a controversy in defining the maximum aggregate size. There is concern among engineers on what definition should be followed (Asphalt Institute or ASTM) for determining the maximum aggregate size. The authors have attempted to answer the concern with an example. First the individual gradations of 4 coarse aggregates and one fine aggregate were evaluated and are shown in Table 1. In aggregate # 1, the first sieve to retain more than 10% is 12.7 mm (½ in.) sieve. Therefore according to asphalt institute definitions the 19 mm (¾ in.) sieve is the nominal maximum size and 25.4 mm (1 in.) is the maximum size. By taking 25.4 mm (1 in.) sieve size as maximum size the target gradations were determined and are shown in Table 1 (A detailed explanation for determining the target gradation is given later in the paper). As one can see from Table 1, the individual target gradations of aggregate # 1, # 2, # 3, # 4 and sand have 100% passing for sieve sizes 25.4 mm (1 in.) and 19 mm (¾ in.). The combined gradation percentage will always be 100 for whatever individual blend percentages we take for that particular sieve sizes. Therefore we can never satisfy the target percentage passing of 88 for 19 mm (¾ in.) sieve size (Fig. 1). The asphalt institute definition does not satisfy in this example. Therefore the authors propose the following definition of maximum aggregate size. It is the smallest sieve opening through which the entire amount (100 %) of aggregates must pass. This definition is consistent with the ASTM definition for maximum aggregate size (ASTM C 125, 2003) and is followed in this paper. According to the definitions the maximum size of aggregates # 1, # 2, # 3, and # 4 were found to be 19 mm (¾ in.), 14.3 mm (9/16 in.), 11.1 mm (7/16 in.) and 9.5 mm (3/8 in.). Even though the maximum size of aggregates # 2 and # 3 were both 12.7 mm (1/2 in.) their individual gradations were different (Table 1). Therefore to prevent confusion it can be called as 9/16 in. and 7/16 in. aggregates. All the 4 aggregates were blended with sand, the largest of the 4 aggregates 19 mm (¾ in.) aggregate was taken as the maximum size aggregate.
K-5
Target Gradation The maximum density line is a straight line that gives the target gradation. The maximum aggregate size raised to the 0.45 power on the x-axis will have cumulative 100 percent passing in the y-axis. Thus the x and y values are known for the maximum aggregate size point in the graph. We can determine the slope of the line by substituting the x and y values in the equation of the line (as the MDL passes the origin the intercept value in the equation of the line is zero). Once the slope of the MDL is determined we can determine the respective cumulative percentage passing for the other sieve sizes. Thus the target gradations that give the densest packing of aggregates are obtained. The target gradations depend on the maximum aggregate size and the value of the power on the x-axis. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES The main objectives of this investigation were:
• To determine whether the sieve opening raised to 0.45 power is applicable for quartzite aggregates for determining the MDL.
• To confirm the existence of a line of maximum density for obtaining the densest packing of aggregates.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM Quartzite aggregate samples of different sizes and different gradations were obtained from local sources in South Dakota. Sieve Analysis was done on each of these individual sample aggregates (both fine and coarse). The fineness moduli of the quartzite aggregates were evaluated as per ASTM C136. The individual gradation plots of all the aggregates were plotted. The theoretical target gradations were first obtained for the different powers: 0.35, 0.40, 0.45, 0.50 and 0.55. The combined gradation was then obtained by blending different percentages of four coarse aggregates19 mm (¾ in.), 14.3 mm (9/16 in.), 11.1 mm (7/16 in.) and 9.5 mm (3/8 in.), and one fine aggregate. The blend percentages of the aggregates were varied such that the combined gradation fits exactly the target gradation. The individual blend percentages of the aggregates for the different power curves are given in Table 2. The combined gradations of the blended aggregates satisfied the target gradations obtained from various power charts (Table 3). The individual percentage of aggregates, that were used to satisfy the various power target gradations, by weight were taken and blended and sieve
K-6
analysis was done in the lab to evaluate whether the experimentally and theoretically obtained combined gradations are the same. It was found to be the same. Fig. 2 shows that the combined gradation (obtained by blending) exactly fits the theoretical target gradation (obtained from the 0.45 power curve). Five mixes, which incorporated the aggregate gradations of the five power curves, were made and tested for compressive strength (at 7 and 28 days) and flexural strength (at 28 days). A control mix was also made whose aggregate gradations did not match the straight-line gradations of the 0.45 power curve (Fig. 2). This was achieved by blending a single size aggregate [62.5% of 19 mm (¾ in.) aggregate] and sand [37.5%]. The percentages of the coarse and fine aggregate were the same, to what was used earlier, for obtaining the 0.45 optimum chart (Table 2). The water-cement ratio and the cement content were kept constant for all the six mixes. The fresh concrete properties for all the mixes are shown in Table 4. It was found that the mix adopting the 0.35 power chart was “sandy”, whereas the mix adopting the 0.55 power chart gradation was “rocky”. The mix adopting the 0.45 power chart gradation was found to be the optimum mix when compared to all the 6 mixes. It had adequate mortar for finishing with very good workability. The fresh concrete unit weight of this mix was the highest indicating maximum density. The air contents for all the mixes were almost the same indicating that the cement content had major effect on the entrained air content rather than the gradation (cement was constant for all the mixes). The results showed that the mix incorporating the 0.45 power chart gradations gave the highest compressive and flexural strength when compared to other power charts and the control concrete (Fig. 3, 4, 5 and 6). The 0.45 optimum mix showed 6% and 16% more compressive strength than the 0.35 and 0.55 optimum mixes respectively. This suggests that when the power was raised beyond 0.45 the compressive strength decreases rapidly. The 0.45 optimum mix showed 12% more compressive strength than the 0.45 control mix. The flexural strength values of all the concretes mixes also followed the same trend. Why the 0.45 power chart gradation performed better? As one can see from Table 2, 20.6% of 9.5 mm (3/8 in.) aggregate was used for achieving the 0.45 power chart target gradations. This value was the highest when compared to other power charts. The 0.45 power chart required more 9.5 mm (3/8 in.) aggregate than the other power charts for satisfying their respective target gradations. The minus 9.5 mm (3/8 in.), plus 2.36 mm (No. 8) sieve particles are the intermediate particles that fill the
K-7
major voids and aid in mix mobility. Since more of these intermediate particles were used for achieving the target gradations of the 0.45 power chart, the concrete mix incorporating these gradations gave the best workable mix with the maximum strength. CONCLUSIONS The results showed that the mix incorporating the 0.45 power chart gradations gave the highest strength when compared to other power charts and the control concrete. The mix also had very good workability. Thus the 0.45 power curve can be adopted with confidence to obtain the densest configuration of aggregates and it is also universally applicable for all aggregates. The increase in strength obtained by using well-graded aggregates can be used to optimize the cement content for improving the durability aspects of concrete. REFERENCES Russell, H.G., (1999), "ACI Defines High-Performance Concrete", Concrete International, ACI Journal, V.21, No.2, pp.56-57. Nijboer, L.W., (1948), “Plasticity as a factor in the Design of Dense Bituminous Road Carpets”, Elsevier Publishing, New York. Goode, J.F. and Lufsey, L.S., (1962), “A New Graphical Chart for Evaluation Aggregate Gradations”, Proceedings of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol.31, pp. 176-207. ASTM C 125 (2003), “Standard Terminology Relating to Concrete and Concrete Aggregates”, ASTM Book of Standards, Volume 04.02, Concrete and Aggregates, ASTM International, Pennsylvania, USA. STP 1147 (1992), “Effects of Aggregates and Mineral Fillers on Asphalt Mixture Performance”, ASTM Special Technical Publication, Edited By Meininger, R. C., ASTM International, Pennsylvania, USA. ASTM C 136 (2001), “Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates”, ASTM Book of Standards, Volume 04.02, Concrete and Aggregates, ASTM International, Pennsylvania, USA.
K-8
Table 1 Blend and Target Gradations obtained by following Asphalt Definitions for
Maximum Aggregate Size
% Passing
% Batch
% Passing
% Batch
% Passing
% Batch % Passing
% Batch % Passing
% Batch
1 25.4 100.00 36.20 100.00 2.00 100.00 3.70 100.00 20.60 100.00 37.50 100 1003/4 19 100.00 36.20 100.00 2.00 100.00 3.70 100.00 20.60 100.00 37.50 100 881/2 12.7 54.00 19.55 100.00 2.00 100.00 3.70 100.00 20.60 100.00 37.50 83 733/8 9.5 26.89 9.73 90.00 1.80 99.15 3.67 100.00 20.60 100.00 37.50 73 64
No. 4 4.75 5.89 2.13 46.28 0.93 47.77 1.77 58.56 12.06 99.65 37.37 54 47No. 8 2.36 3.86 1.40 15.91 0.32 10.59 0.39 8.52 1.76 88.04 33.01 37 34
No. 16 1.18 3.06 1.11 6.92 0.14 4.56 0.17 2.04 0.42 66.10 24.79 27 25No. 30 0.6 2.41 0.87 4.43 0.09 3.19 0.12 1.13 0.23 37.80 14.18 15 19No. 50 0.3 1.82 0.66 2.90 0.06 2.23 0.08 0.79 0.16 18.66 7.00 8 14
No. 100 0.15 0.84 0.30 1.19 0.02 2.20 0.08 0.49 0.10 5.08 1.91 2 10
Aggregate # 2 (2%)
Aggregate # 1 (36.2%)Sieve
Size (in)
Sieve Size (mm)
Blend percentage
passing
Sand (37.5%)
Aggregate # 3 (3.7%)
Aggregate # 4 (20.6%) Target
percentage passing
Table 2 Individual Blend Percentages of the Aggregates for Different Power Charts
Aggregate # 1 19.05 mm (3/4 in.)
Aggregate # 2 14.29 mm (9/16 in.)
Aggregate # 3 11.11 mm (7/16 in.)
Aggregate # 4 9.52 mm (3/8 in.)
0.35 26.5 14.5 6.0 2.0 51.0 1000.40 35.0 2.0 13.0 3.0 47.0 1000.45 36.2 2.0 3.7 20.6 37.5 1000.50 38.0 9.5 9.5 10.0 33.0 1000.55 38.5 10.5 10.5 13.0 27.5 100
Total Percentage
Blend PercentagesCoarse Aggregates PercentagePower
Chart Type
Fine Aggregate
%
K-9
Table 3 Blend and Target Gradations for Different Power Charts
Table 4 Fresh Concrete P operties for all the Mixes
Blend Gradation
Target Gradation
Blend Gradation
Target Gradation
Blend Gradation
Target Gradation
Blend Gradation
Target Gradation
Blend Gradation
Target Gradation
3/4 19 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1001/2 12.7 88 87 84 85 83 83 83 82 82 803/8 9.5 79 78 74 76 73 73 71 71 71 68
No. 4 4.75 63 62 58 57 54 54 50 50 47 47No. 8 2.36 49 48 45 43 37 39 34 35 30 32No. 16 1.18 36 38 33 33 27 29 24 25 21 22No. 30 0.6 21 30 19 25 15 21 14 18 12 15No. 50 0.3 11 23 10 19 8 15 7 13 6 10
No. 100 0.15 3 18 3 14 2 11 2 9 2 7
Gradation0.3
GradationSieve Size (in)
Sieve Size (mm)
0.55 Power Chart GradationGradation Gradation
0.40 Power Chart 5 Power Chart 0.45 Power Chart 0.50 Power Chart
r
Mix Ambient Humidity Slump Air Unit ConcreteID Temp. Content Weight Temp.
oC (RH) (mm) (%) kg/m3 oC0.35 21.1 30 6.35 2.0 2396.6 21.10.40 21.1 30 12.70 2.0 2428.6 21.10.45 21.1 30 19.05 1.8 2435.0 21.10.50 21.1 30 12.70 1.8 2428.6 21.10.55 21.1 30 6.35 2.0 2390.2 21.1
Control 21.1 30 31.75 1.8 2454.3 21.1
K-10
Fig. 1 Comparison of Blend & T Gradations (Asphalt Defn
Fig. 3 Compressive Strength for Fig. 4 Compressive Strength for Various Types of Power Curve Mixes 0.45 Optimum & Control Curve Mixes
Fig. 5 Flexural Strengths for Fig. 6 Flexural Strengths for 0.45 Various Types of Power Curve Mixes Optimum & Control Curve Mixes
arget Fig. 2 Comparison of Optimum, Target .) and Control Gradations (ASTM Defn.)
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5(Sieve Size - mm)^0.45
Perc
ent P
assi
ng
Target GradationCombined Gradation
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55Type of Power Curve
Com
pres
sive
Str
engt
h (M
Pa)
7 Days 28 Days
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55Type of Power Curve
Flex
ural
Str
engt
h (M
Pa)
00 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
20
40
60
80
100
(Sieve Size - mm)^0.45
Target GradationOptimum Gradation
Perc
ent P
assi
ng Control Gradation
0
10
20
30
0.45 Optimum ControlT
40
50
60
ype of Power Curve
Com
pres
sive
Str
engt
h (M
Pa)
7 Days 28 Days
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.45 Optimum ControlType of Power Curve
Flex
ural
Str
engt
h (M
Pa)
Appendix – L Temperature Monitoring With
I-Button
L-1
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
3/7/03 0:00 3/8/03 0:00 3/9/03 0:00 3/10/03 0:00 3/11/03 0:00 3/12/03 0:00 3/13/03 0:00 3/14/03 0:00 3/15/03 0:00 3/16/03 0:00
Time
Tem
pera
ture
(0 F)
Figure L1: Variation of concrete (1CLB) temperature over a period of 7 days
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
3/7/2003 0:00 3/8/2003 0:00 3/9/2003 0:00 3/10/2003 0:00 3/11/2003 0:00 3/12/2003 0:00 3/13/2003 0:00 3/14/2003 0:00 3/15/2003 0:00
Time
Tem
pera
ture
(0 F)
Figure L2: Variation of concrete (1OLB) temperature over a period of 7 days
L-2
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
3/9/2003 0:00 3/10/2003 0:00 3/11/2003 0:00 3/12/2003 0:00 3/13/2003 0:00 3/14/2003 0:00 3/15/2003 0:00 3/16/2003 0:00 3/17/2003 0:00
Time
Tem
pera
ture
(0 F)
Figure L3: Variation of concrete (1OLFB) temperature over a period of 7 days
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
3/20/03 0:00 3/21/03 0:00 3/22/03 0:00 3/23/03 0:00 3/24/03 0:00 3/25/03 0:00 3/26/03 0:00 3/27/03 0:00 3/28/03 0:00
Time
Tem
pera
ture
(0 F)
Figure L4: Variation of concrete (2CLB) temperature over a period of 7 days
L-3
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
3/20/03 0:00 3/21/03 0:00 3/22/03 0:00 3/23/03 0:00 3/24/03 0:00 3/25/03 0:00 3/26/03 0:00 3/27/03 0:00 3/28/03 0:00
Time
Tem
pera
ture
(0 F)
Figure L5: Variation of concrete (2OLB) temperature over a period of 7 days
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
3/21/03 0:00 3/22/03 0:00 3/23/03 0:00 3/24/03 0:00 3/25/03 0:00 3/26/03 0:00 3/27/03 0:00 3/28/03 0:00 3/29/03 0:00
Time
Tem
pera
ture
(0 F)
Figure L6: Variation of concrete (2OLFB) temperature over a period of 7 days
L-4
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
4/13/03 0:00 4/14/03 0:00 4/15/03 0:00 4/16/03 0:00 4/17/03 0:00 4/18/03 0:00 4/19/03 0:00 4/20/03 0:00 4/21/03 0:00
Time
Tem
pera
ture
(0 F)
Figure L7: Variation of concrete (3CLB) temperature over a period of 7 days
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
4/13/03 0:00 4/14/03 0:00 4/15/03 0:00 4/16/03 0:00 4/17/03 0:00 4/18/03 0:00 4/19/03 0:00 4/20/03 0:00 4/21/03 0:00
Time
Tem
pera
ture
(0 F)
Figure L8: Variation of concrete (3OLB) temperature over a period of 7 days
L-5
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
4/13/03 0:00 4/14/03 0:00 4/15/03 0:00 4/16/03 0:00 4/17/03 0:00 4/18/03 0:00 4/19/03 0:00 4/20/03 0:00 4/21/03 0:00
Time
Tem
pera
ture
(0 F)
Figure L9: Variation of concrete (3OLFB) temperature over a period of 7 days
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
5/3/03 0:00 5/4/03 0:00 5/5/03 0:00 5/6/03 0:00 5/7/03 0:00 5/8/03 0:00 5/9/03 0:00 5/10/03 0:00 5/11/03 0:00
Time
Tem
pera
ture
(0 F)
Figure L10: Variation of concrete (4CLB) temperature over a period of 7 days
L-6
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
5/3/03 0:00 5/4/03 0:00 5/5/03 0:00 5/6/03 0:00 5/7/03 0:00 5/8/03 0:00 5/9/03 0:00 5/10/03 0:00 5/11/03 0:00
Time
Tem
pera
ture
(0 F)
Figure L11: Variation of concrete (4OLB) temperature over a period of 7 days
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
5/3/03 0:00 5/4/03 0:00 5/5/03 0:00 5/6/03 0:00 5/7/03 0:00 5/8/03 0:00 5/9/03 0:00 5/10/03 0:00 5/11/03 0:00
Time
Tem
pera
ture
(0 F)
Figure L12: Variation of concrete (4OLFB) temperature over a period of 7 days
L-7
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
4/21/03 0:00 4/22/03 0:00 4/23/03 0:00 4/24/03 0:00 4/25/03 0:00 4/26/03 0:00 4/27/03 0:00 4/28/03 0:00
Time
Tem
epra
ture
(0 F)
Figure L13: Variation of concrete (1CGB) temperature over a period of 7 days
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
4/21/03 0:00 4/22/03 0:00 4/23/03 0:00 4/24/03 0:00 4/25/03 0:00 4/26/03 0:00 4/27/03 0:00 4/28/03 0:00
Time
Tem
pear
atur
e (0 F)
Figure L14: Variation of concrete (1OGB) temperature over a period of 7 days
L-8
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
4/21/03 0:00 4/22/03 0:00 4/23/03 0:00 4/24/03 0:00 4/25/03 0:00 4/26/03 0:00 4/27/03 0:00 4/28/03 0:00
Time
Tem
pera
ture
(0 F)
Figure L15: Variation of concrete (1OGFB) temperature over a period of 7 days
66
70
74
78
82
86
90
94
98
6/18/03 0:00 6/19/03 0:00 6/20/03 0:00 6/21/03 0:00 6/22/03 0:00 6/23/03 0:00 6/24/03 0:00 6/25/03 0:00 6/26/03 0:00
Time
Tem
pera
ture
(0 F)
Figure L16: Variation of concrete (1CQB) temperature over a period of 7 days
L-9
66
70
74
78
82
86
90
94
98
6/18/03 0:00 6/19/03 0:00 6/20/03 0:00 6/21/03 0:00 6/22/03 0:00 6/23/03 0:00 6/24/03 0:00 6/25/03 0:00 6/26/03 0:00
Time
Tem
pera
ture
(0 F)
Figure L17: Variation of concrete (1OQB) temperature over a period of 7 days
66
70
74
78
82
86
90
94
98
6/18/03 0:00 6/19/03 0:00 6/20/03 0:00 6/21/03 0:00 6/22/03 0:00 6/23/03 0:00 6/24/03 0:00 6/25/03 0:00 6/26/03 0:00
Time
Tem
pera
ture
(0 F)
Figure L18: Variation of concrete (1OQFB) temperature over a period of 7 days
top related